A Discourse Analysis of Anthropocene in IHOPE Publications

(1)

Institutionen för arkeologi och antik historia

A Discourse Analysis of Anthropocene in IHOPE Publications

Is There a Place for Archaeology?

Félice Rubin

Kandidatuppsats 15 hp i Arkeologi VT 2020 Handledare: Anneli Ekblom Engelska Parken

(2)

Abstract

Rubin, F. 2020. A discourse analysis of Anthropocene in IHOPE publications. Is there a role for archaeology?

Rubin, F. 2020. En diskursanalys av Antropocen I IHOPE-publikationer. Finns det en roll för arkeologi?

This thesis explores in what way the organisation IHOPE discuss the concept of Anthropocene in text. The texts analysed are based on a selection from publications on IHOPE’s webpage that encompass the word ‘Anthropocene’. The thesis further discusses the role of archaeology in the Anthropocene debate and glances at the agency theory in a discussion of the emergence of Anthropocene as defined as a new geological era. The thesis also discusses this definition and compares it to other alternative definitions as well as diving into the debate of the starting point of this proposed era. A short introduction is made of environmental determinism and its role in archaeology, and how that possibly relates to the background for the idea of Anthropocene. The texts analysed are presented through John Dryzek’s categories for discourse analysis on environmental issues in order to answer the research questions.

Studien utforskar hur organisationen IHOPE diskuterar konceptet Antropocen i sina texter.

Texterna som analyseras baseras på ett urval av publikationer från IHOPE:s hemsida, specifikt de som använder ordet ‘Antropocen’. Studien diskuterar även rollen för arkeologi i debatten kring Antropocen och tittar på agensteori i en diskussion kring uppkomsten av Antropocen i dess definition som en geologisk period. Studien diskuterar även denna definition and jämför den med andra definitioner samt dyker in i debatten gällande när denna geologiska period anses ha börjat. En kort introduktion till miljödeterminism ges och dess roll inom arkeologi samt hur det kan relatera till bakgrunden för idén om Antropocen. Texterna som analyseras presenteras genom användningen av John Dryzeks kategorier som är utformade för diskursanalyser av miljörelaterade frågor. Metoden används för att söka besvara forskningsfrågorna.

Keywords: Anthropocene, archaeology, agency, human-nature, environmental determinism.

Kandidatuppsats i Arkeologi 15 hp. Handledare: Anneli Ekblom. Ventilerad och godkänd 2020-06-21

Institutionen för arkeologi och antik historia, Uppsala universitet, Box 626, 75126 Uppsala, Sweden

(3)

1. Introduction

The term Anthropocene has gained a momentous popularity in academia as well as archaeology the last 20 years. The aim of this thesis is to analyse the idea or concept of Anthropocene in archaeology - how it is presented, how or if it is described and in what context. As I will show, the meanings and contexts of Anthropocene has shifted over time. In this thesis I will begin with a broader analysis of the concept and then discuss its increased popularity in archaeology using a Google search on the term. I will then analyse a selection of texts from researchers in the academic network IHOPE. IHOPE is an organization which describes itself as researchers sharing focus on time –, human –, and global scales. IHOPE researchers argue that an integrated long-term perspective is important for the understanding of sustainability. IHOPE is just one of many organisations that address the Anthropocene in their research, but I have chosen IHOPE here as it consists of relatively many archaeologists and I found it a good way to limit my study to what was doable within the frame of a two-month thesis.

Anthropocene in its strictest sense refers to a new geological epoch, brought on by man’s impact on nature (Hilding-Rydevik et al. 2018: 117). The idea is relatively new, originating from a publication by Crutzen and Stoermer in 2000 (see discussion in Zalasiewicz 2015: 197).

The Anthropocene thus proposes the idea that humans have brought on a new geological epoch, based on the enormous impact we have on the climate. As I will show here the popularity of the term in archaeology increased significantly in the last decade. However, with the increased popularity of the term it has also taken on other meanings. Libby Robin (2018), for example, prefers the concept of Anthropocene as a metaphor for living with planetary changes, often described as destructive.

Archaeology deserves a place in the discussion of Anthropocene since the study of archaeology is human activity in the perspective of geological time (Balter 2013). A new epoch would mark the changes done to our planet by humans. Archaeologists can, among other things, contribute to the debate of when the Anthropocene supposedly began. Crutzen and Stoermer (2000) suggested, when first presenting the concept of Anthropocene, that it began after the steam engine was invented, due to the environmental changes done by fossil fuel that followed (Crutzen 2002, 2006). Archaeology however shows that humans have had a significant impact on the planet since long before the industrial revolution. We have been changing our environment in the last 60.000 years, when we walked out of Africa – followed by hunting, burning and deforestation impacting the climate. Meanwhile Ruddiman (2013) has suggested that Anthropocene was brought on by the beginning of farming 6000 years ago. However, if the concept was brought to light to inform and warn the public of human destruction brought about by industrialism, moving the Anthropocene back in time might devalue this purpose (Balter 2013). That being said, archaeology is clearly beneficial to the study of Anthropocene.

The thesis will also be put through the looking glasses of agency based on the concept of Anthropocene by how it is described and discussed in IHOPE’s publications. Later, I will demonstrate the similarities and differences between earlier deterministic thoughts and ideas of agency in the Anthropocene, where a non-agential Anthropocene is simply a condition, while a definition of Anthropocene as a result of human-induced changes affords humans with

(6)

agency. In addition, as already discussed above and as I will discuss further here, the definition of the Anthropocene has been broadened significantly since it was introduced.

1.1. Aims and questions

The thesis broadly asks how the academic community, specifically IHOPE, discuss the concept of Anthropocene and in what way the term is presented and debated. The thesis thus aims to answer four main questions;

i. In what way is Anthropocene presented and discussed by the various researchers in IHOPE?

ii. How is agency discussed in the texts? Is Anthropocene a naturally occurring condition or an effect of human agency?

iii. How (if) does the concept of the Anthropocene change the archaeological practice and debate?

iv. What is the potential role of archaeology in defining the concept of the Anthropocene?

1.2. Outline of the thesis

The purpose is to analyse and discuss how an organization such as IHOPE writes about Anthropocene, specifically how Anthropocene is discussed in relevant publicised scientific articles. A background to Anthropocene will be presented, discussing when and how the concept developed, how it became widely accepted or discussed, and what could lie behind the emergence of the concept. Agency, human-nature and archaeology will all be defined and discussed in relation to the concept Anthropocene. Methodologically I will use discourse analysis and John Dryzek’s (1997) analytical categories for studying environmental discourses.

Questions that will be asked are: Is Anthropocene discussed in relation to archaeology? How is Anthropocene defined and discussed in these publications? Environmental determinism and its role in processual archaeology will be presented in short to demonstrate the thoughts behind the Anthropocene debate, and whether it has any similarities to past deterministic ideas, to evaluate further connections with archaeology and agency in relation to the human-nature dichotomy.

(7)

2. Theory and methods

As already discussed in the introduction I want to analyse the idea or concept of Anthropocene in archaeology - how it is presented, how or if it is described and in what context. In addition, the concept of the Anthropocene challenges the way we do archaeology. I will therefore also discuss here how the Anthropocene as a concept is being discussed by archaeologists. Below I will begin by presenting the source material, methodology and theoretical framework for this analysis.

2.1. Method and sources

IHOPE aims to achieve the integration between sciences by creating frameworks. It is a multidisciplinary organisation consisting mainly of archaeologist researchers. IHOPE’s research is about socio-ecological systems, human-earth systems, and how their features can be researched through multidisciplinary projects. The researchers want to map the earth’s record of human system changes over time (past millennia), understand socio-ecological dynamics of human history, by looking at the relationships between climate, technology, culture etc to present future solutions.

The analyses in this study is based first on which of the IHOPE publications that mention the word Anthropocene. The years 2018-2019 are chosen by default, since those are the publications presented on the webpage at the time of writing. Some of the totalling 81 publications listed for 2018-2019 are left out, due to among other things language – five of them are written in Japanese – and selection is also based on how accessible they are. For this study it was reasonable to exclude the ones which are only attainable either in book form or simply not available as open access or in the e-journal system. After selecting publications based on access and language, I evaluated 40 of the IHOPE publications from 2018-2019 presented on their webpage (ihopenet/publications.org). I then selected the final number of articles based on which ones uses the word ‘Anthropocene’, by using a word search in the texts. The reason for this selection is based not only on time frame but also to show how specifically academic texts write about Anthropocene. The massive results from an initial search of Anthropocene together with archaeology is too excessive to analyse all papers. In choosing IHOPE, I can analyse the specific debate.

In the end, only nine texts out of the 40 IHOPE publications used ‘Anthropocene’ and these were then selected for further analysis. The final nine texts are published in a few different ways, all peer-reviewed, and are presented in Appendix 1. There are five different journals and three books, where one of the books holds two texts as separate chapters. The journals are Climatic Change, The Anthropocene review, Human Ecology: An interdisciplinary journal, Anthropocene, and the fifth are keynotes from a conference then published in the journal Historisk Tidsskrift. Of the books, one is a chapter in an anthology, Urban Planet: Knowledge Towards Sustainable Cities, one in The Oxford Handbook of Historical Ecology and Applied Archaeology and then two texts in the book Issues and Concepts in Historical Ecology: The Past and Future of Landscapes and regions.

2.1.1. What is a discourse?

Discourse is a term that is often used to describe a jargon within a specific area, and the concept suggest that there are structured patterns in language which people unknowingly adhere to in

(8)

different contexts. One discourse could for example be politics, where the use of language often looks very different to others, one example being medical discourse (Jorgensen & Phillips 2002). In this thesis, the Anthropocene discourse in IHOPE publications will be analysed to explore how Anthropocene is defined in academic texts. Is there a pattern or structure to the language that the texts follow or maintain? This analysis will be executed by using five categories based on John S. Dryzek (1997).

2.3. Theory

Dryzek has done a number of analyses on environmental discourse, analysing language and approaches to environmental issues. Below is a presentation of the four categories he has constructed for discourse analysis that are particularly useful for my thesis – especially since they are modified to suit an environmental discourse (Dryzek 1997: 17-19). The discourse of the IHOPE texts will initially be categorized through these tools one text at a time, which will act as a guideline for the end discussion. Below is an overview of the key points of Dryzek’s (1997) categories and an explanation of how they will be used here.

1. “Basic entities whose existence is recognized or constructed”

This could also be the ontology of discourse, ontology meaning the dividing of existing things into categories, to understand how they fit together. Every discourse has its ontology. One discourse might acknowledge ecosystem’s existence while others disregard natural systems altogether, viewing nature from a strict animal perspective. The ecosystem could also be an entity holding its own intelligence. Humans as entities mean different things in varying discourses, one might be “rational, egoistic, human beings”. The discourses might otherwise handle human motivations, or humans in state or population assemblages. Humans could be a useful category, although some deconstruct humans into smaller entities, such as gender, while some recognize them as part of a bigger entity such as governments. Here, Anthropocene might be presented in a discourse as an entity, in much the same way as ecosystems. If a text describes or refers to the Anthropocene as a fact, and not a discussion of whether it is truly here or how it should be defined, it fits into this category of ’recognized existence’. Most of the texts already use Anthropocene as an entity constructed by humans – which could fit into this category – or no. 2 below.

2. “Assumptions about natural relationships”

This category explores different ideas around what is the natural relationship between different things. A discourse always shows some notion of what is ‘natural’ between entities. A discourse might note this as competition, between humans or creatures – one example could be creatures competing in a Darwinian struggle. This would then be seen as the natural relationship between these entities. Human social systems as well as natural systems could be seen as cooperating.

Different discourses also assume hierarchies as natural, this could be political power, species, ecological sensibility, race, intellect etc. Here, I will also approach the question of determinism, in terms of if Anthropocene is discussed as a result of a natural relationship between human and environment that cannot be stopped – deterministic, or as a natural relationship where we use and act upon one another, an exchange between agents.

3. “Agents and their motives”

Agents could be both individuals but also collectives. Although this is mostly expressed in terms of human agency– especially in relation to the Anthropocene – but agents could also be nonhuman. These agents are represented in different ways in discourses. They could be ’benign’

and ’public-spirited administrators’. Other discourses might discuss the same people as selfish and bureaucratic. This of course means that some go so far as to ignore the presence of agents in the form of governmental officials. Other agents and motives also appear, such as elites, rational consumers, ignorant populations, law-abiding citizens and an Earth that is tough or

(9)

fragile, forgiving or punishing. The Earth can also be described as an agent can therefore act and has its own motives.

4. “Key metaphors and other rhetorical devices”

In a narrative, metaphors are crucial. Dryzek has some ’key metaphors’ he has seen in environmental discourse, for instance the idea of “spaceship earth”; Machines (“nature is like a machine that can be reassembled to better meet human needs”); or Organisms (“nature is a complex organism that grows and develops”). Anthropocene in itself could occur as a metaphor.

Metaphors are often a rhetorical apparatus which aims to persuade readers. Other types of rhetoric can perform similarly, such as appealing to practices or institutions whose acceptance is established – for instance rights, cultural traditions and constitutions. Both negative and positive might be accentuated here. Horrifying stories surrounding environmental issues caused by governmental mistakes or negligence can be used as arguments, while other discourses emphasize successful stories. For example, many texts regarding the Anthropocene discuss challenges and problems in the face of Anthropocene consequences, where humans, and thereby also institutions constituted by humans, are the main cause of these challenges. Others instead focuses how there is a hopeful outlook on technological advances or multidisciplinary research which might help combat these issues.

5. ”Time scales and perspective”

I specifically added this category to Dryzek’s for my discussion of Anthropocene, based on earlier research and articles read for the background of this study, where changes in the scale of human influence on global systems is prevalent. Is the discussion mainly focused on the past, or the present? This could also include ’modern thought’. The Anthropocene is a very current subject and one discourse might reveal a perspective on what lead to this; another discourse what is key today, living with or in the Anthropocene; one might contain ideas about the future, for example how to handle future challenges brought on by the Anthropocene. All these time perspectives are based on the notion that Anthropocene is an entity and that we are some type of agents, be it agency in the past or how we act now. In many instances, the future perspective based in modern thinking and our current way of life, is also deviced by metaphorical rhetoric.

If a discourse uses rhetoric as ’oncoming catastrophe’, it also pertains to how we view the world we live in today and future changes. Anthropocene is a topic often discussed by scale, and the idea is to see if this category is useful in studying the discourse of IHOPE.

(10)

3. IHOPE and the Anthropocene

IHOPE is an initiative for a global network of researchers whose projects aim to demonstrate how past changes in the Earth system is related to human-environment systems changes. They integrate knowledge and resources from multiple fields of study to research this dynamic (Constanza et. al 2012). Under the following headline I will present what IHOPE is, what the organization aims to achieve and why I have chosen its publications for my discourse analysis.

Some of the information will be taken from IHOPE’s website (ihopenet.org) and thus showing what information is accessible to the public.

3.1. Presentation of IHOPE

IHOPE aims to achieve the integration between sciences by creating frameworks as discussed in Chapter 2. Constanza et al. (2012) lists three questions aimed towards IHOPE’s projects.

How understanding of future options can be afforded by asking what the fundamental socio- ecological cooperations are from a unified history; what the elaborate and numerous merging processes are that drive the development, viability or disruption of socio-ecological systems, furthermore realising humans as possible formative agents; what needs there are in order to assess other informative frameworks, descriptions and systems models against examinations of deeply varying conditions.

IHOPE thus wants to use knowledge about the past to create a better future, by researching human’s changes on nature over longer periods of time, this stems from the need for a holistic approach (Constanza et al. 2012). On their website, they further explain what their research aims are. They want to establish the importance of the past in meeting our future; research complicated interactions that concludes the viability and susceptibility of communities;

combine viewpoints, theories, methods and structures from the Earth system sciences and the humanities; observe that combined knowledge needs fairness, confidence and esteem among research communities and practices; call on the collaboration between global organisations.

They further explain “IHOPE is a global community of researchers who share a strong interest in both the past and the future of our species and planet Earth”. How does this relate to their discussions of Anthropocene? The publications analysed here are produced by the members of the Scientific Steering committee of IHOPE and have been selected from the list of publications on the IHOPE website.

(11)

4. The concept of the Anthropocene

In May of 2000, Paul J. Crutzen and Eugene F. Stoermer wrote an article in Global Change News Letter (no. 41), titled The “Anthropocene”. The paper was barely one and a half pages, but 20 years later, the concept they presented as the Anthropocene is still being discussed and it seems the discussion of Anthropocene is getting bigger by the year. A quick search on Google Scholar, ResearchGate or similar databases generate a multitude of papers, essays and articles – and that’s only the ones with Anthropocene in the title and within the field of archaeology (see below). With increasing popularity use the definition has been broadened to refer also to the transition and mindset of modernity and industrialism (Robin 2018). In 1924, the term

“noösphere”, meaning the world of thought – technological advancements and so forth, was coined (Crutzen 2006: 13). Much of what has been written recently calls for the need of new narratives that can challenge the mindset that shaped the Anthropocene (see for example Tsing et al. 2019; Latour & Porter 2018; Robin 2018). Below, I will discuss in more detail the concept of Anthropocene and then introduce briefly its use in archaeology.

4.1. Definitions

As Santana (2019) writes, if Anthropocene is to be officially recognised, we must use history to forecast the future. This is in a sense the very base of the Anthropocene debate, where the perspective of impact over time scales is a central topic, and Santana even proposes that a formal definition should be postponed. There is no shortage of academic texts dealing with the Anthropocene. Most commonly, Anthropocene is simply (although not so simple) described as a geological era, delivered by the consequences of human agency – and this is often referred to as us being a ‘geological force’ (Santana 2019; Crutzen 2006; Lane 2015). However, in some cases, Anthropocene is also vividly described as the idea of an oncoming apocalypse, Anthropocene is then synonymous to us facing catastrophic challenges. This brings on debates about new narratives or imaginations. The earliest concept of the Anthropocene saw the end of the geological period Holocene for a new geological age when man’s effect on biology, geology and climate had become a geological force. Since 1885, the post-glacial epoch has been defined as the Holocene (Crutzen 2006). By contrast, the term Anthropocene (Crutzen 2006) names a new geological epoch. The idea is only two decades old, however, the idea of mankind as a force driving nature is not new. Georges-Louis Leclerc used the term ‘anthropozoic’ in 1778.

In 1992, E.O. Wilson called it ‘Eremozoic’ and Andrew Rewkin ‘Anthrocene’ (Lane 2015).

Marsh also publicized the book Man and Nature in 1864 discussing man’s impact on the world (Erlandson & Braje 2013).

Though much discussion has been spent on defining the starting point (see discussion in 4.1.1.) the increasing popularity has also led to new definitions. One of these is the idea of

”patchy Anthropocene”, a tool for noticing structures in landscape to reveal developments of the cohabitation of humans and nonhumans throughout history (Tsing et al. 2019). The Anthropocene is here seen as brought on by co-living of humans and more-than-humans (multispecies) and their collective anthropogenic disruptions. Anthropocene is also discussed as a consequence of modern ambitions, albeit this time blaming it on millennials (Tsing et al.

2019), perhaps what Head (2015) calls Moderns. Even though all texts aren’t restricted to painting an apocalyptic picture, the discussion of catastrophe, hope and futuristic images of misery is quite ubiquitous.

Also entertaining this idea, Lesley Head (2015) paints a picture of apocalyptic measures,

(12)

repeating words like ‘uncertainty’ and mediate a feeling of an unstoppable upcoming catastrophe. In Head’s article The Anthropoceneans, they – the Anthropoceneans – are the persons living the consequences of the future-driven mindset of Moderns, assuming to be us.

By comparing Moderns and Anthropoceneans, Head highlights the relationship between environment and sociality, and their reliance on one another and states that less technology is not necessarily better, and that we shouldn’t look at how older generations lived, just create different technologies to meet future Anthropoceneans needs. There are far more accounts of this doomsday scenario, for example Pétursdóttir (2017) also describes the Anthropocene through a dystopian lens and describes her view on the subject by calling the discussion of Anthropocene a blend of agony and remorse, still stating a feeling of hope (2017:177).

Pétursdóttir also claims that this strengthens the nature-culture dichotomy. Exploring these dire predictions of modernity, Catlin (2016) also describes Anthropocene using the term as the era of human agency and its effect on global climate systems which might threaten our current, modern lifestyles. Much in the same line of thinking, others suggest that getting accustomed to those changes which have already occurred is the most pressing matter for us to be able to live with future climate (Robin 2018), much in the same way as Head (2015) talks about Anthropoceneans needs for the future.

Meanwhile Latour (2014) calls the Earth an agent of what he proposes we should call geostory – our common geo-history. An example of humans as agents is what Latour describes as the Earth not being objective, due to all the human changes. Human action on the planet is so widely-spread and cemented in its place that a sudden absence of humans would not bring the Earth back to the form it had before us. He further expresses that even though we are somewhat nature-driven, we cannot claim to be unknowing agents. Below I will discuss in more detail the concept of Anthropocene and then introduce briefly its use in archaeology.

4.1.1. Debating the starting point

In contrast to discussions of how we may have to adapt to different ways of life, there are more instrumental descriptions of the Anthropocene, where it is mainly discussed as a significant geological idea. There is some considering debate as to the timing of this geological period (see review in Zalasiewicz et al. 2015) and timings depend on the definitions. In their paper, Crutzen

& Stoermer (2000) wrote that designating a particular dating when the Anthropocene started is to them arbitrary, however, they suggested the end of the 1700-hundreds. They did state that other proposals are not unthinkable, but they chose their suggestion because of the human effects seen on a global scale since that time and correlates this to the 1784 invention of the steam engine.

However, Zalasiewicz et al. (2015) point to the different aspects in fossil records which led to earlier definitions of the transition from one geological epoch to another. These were all caused by some form of environmental change, be it glaciers or meteorites. They also note that drawing a boundary from when a geological epoch starts need to meet a global correlation, meaning stratigraphy is not only a useful tool but also the very base on which an established epoch stands. Demurring this I claims that the landscape projects brought on by industry and imperiality after World War II is what brings the Anthropocene, thus stating a starting point for the acceleration of changes leading to this moment (Tsing et al. 2019). After World War II the already clear environmental changes made by humans increased rapidly and due to that significant development, the time from 1945 until now has been suggested as the Great Acceleration (Steffen et al. 2011). Others seem to agree with the effects following the war- years, however on a global scale and not landscape sites and that the Anthropocene is related to globalization, which the Great Acceleration borne further (Robin 2018). In accordance with Crutzen and Stoermer (2000), Erlandson and Braje (2013) state that we cannot avoid an arbitrary dating and that there is no justified date, while still suggesting that the Anthropocene started around 10.000 years ago, based on human emigration and domestication.

Steffen et al. (2011) proposes the year 1800 as a fair starting point, stating that the Industrial Revolution, while starting in the 1700’s, did not really remodel England until 100 years later

(13)

and Ruddiman (2013) seems to agree, writing that the industrial era showed great human influence. However, in 2003, Ruddiman gave the hypothesis of an early-anthropogenic. He states that this is needed since anthropogenic effects are seen before the industrial era, but the term early-anthropogenic suggests that Ruddiman still somewhat agrees with the Industrial Revolution, just expanding the scale of anthropogenic change. Others have also suggested stages in the – first the industrial era ca 1800-1945 because of burning fossil fuels, followed by The Great Acceleration, from the end of the second World War until today, marked by globalization (Lane 2015). Expanding these two definitions further, there has also been suggestions of four decided stages: 1) The domestication of animals or the beginning of large- scale agriculture; 2) The first acceleration with large-scale burning of coal at the time of the Industrial Revolution; 3) The post-1950 Great Acceleration; 4) the final stage is what Kunnas (2017: 138ff) calls the good or the bad Anthropocene, based on what actions humans take.

4.1.2. Anthropocene in academia

It is clear that the academic debate around the start of the Anthropocene will continue, as Crutzen & Stoermer themselves (see 3.1.1.) claimed that arbitrary dating would inevitably follow their suggestion. One common theme is that the Anthropocene, regardless of its start, is a present or future task based on past activity. So how does academia tackle the issue of the future? There are differences in future hopes of Western and non-Western peoples, and adaptions to the future world that Head (2015) discusses may in fact not be applicable on a global scale. According to Robin (2018), the more catastrophic images we are subjected to, the less we tend to feel a need to take personal responsibility to act. The new millennium exposed us to a direr science; mass extinction, over-population and climate change. The planet has seen catastrophic changes before, but the scale of human agency is hard to ignore, and there are also moral and ethical responsibilities in meeting with these changes (Robin 2018). It might be

“justified to assign the term “anthropocene” to the current geological epoch” (Crutzen 2006:

13), but there may also be more to the Anthropocene than anthropogenic changes (Lane 2015).

Our current way of life is marked by an awareness of our environment and ‘global warming’

and other ominous terms have made an impression on the public. The anxiousness of climate change is visible in media through images of a dystopic future. This is where archaeology has a role in tackling climate change, looking forward and not the traditional backward (Lane 2015).

The Anthropocene has thus taken its place outside of academia, nevertheless, academia is where the impact of this concept is discussed.

4.2. The use of Anthropocene in archaeology

Google Scholar is a useful tool which allows you to do searches by not only words, but also specific years. Searching for ’Anthropocene + archaeology’ allowed me to limit my search by the starting year and ending year as the same. This allowed me to do the search firstly from 2000 until 2000, followed by 2001-2001 and repeating that pattern. The results are presented in a simple graph below, further calculation shows that in two decades the number of search results have increased by 8,361, not counting the four from 2000. The analysis shows quite clearly the increased popularity of the term in archaeological papers, especially in the last few years.

However, I have not had time to look into the approaches and definitions of the Anthropocene in these papers, this will only be done in the deeper analysis of the IHOPE publications.

(14)

Fig. 1. The number of search results on Google Scholar. Searched year by year using ‘Anthropocene + archaeology’. The graph shows a rapid increase, from four articles in 2000 to 1740 in 2019. In 2020, so far, the search showed 498 hits as of April 19^th.

Other researchers have discussed the influence of the term Anthropocene in relation to archaeology. Chakrabarty maintains that “anthropogenic explanations of climate change spell the collapse of the age-old humanist distinction between natural history and human history”

(2009: 201 in Solli et.al. 2011: 49). However, Solli et al. (2011) maintains that culture and nature never really have been separated in archaeology, while still noting that processual archaeology was seen as deterministic in terms of nature’s influence of culture. They further state that with the Anthropocene (defined as an epoch), archaeology must combine this with narrative methods seen in post-processual archaeology, giving a story to the past. Using small- scale data on issues on a global scale will also necessitate archaeologists to ask other questions of past material records. There is a need to focus on past processes that correspond to contemporary practice in order to shape efficient relations between past and present (Catlin 2016).

While steering clear of a too extensive comparison, a point could be made about the relationship between the idea of Anthropocene and the notion of human and nature which sparked the processual archaeology (Johnson 2010: 27-31). One major criticism against processual research has focused on the tendency towards environmental determinism and the very rigid systemic analyses that pre-assumes society and culture as bound entities (idem.). This environmental determinism, the starting point of the processualism, could possibly be seen also in the archaeological research around the Anthropocene or drawing on the concept of the Anthropocene. However, one major difference is the established use of processualism and wide- spread acceptance of it as a scientific theory and method. There is not yet any such theoretical programme for the Anthropocene, and as discussed here it can refer to many different things, it is therefore of interest to review how the more recent works that reference the Anthropocene define environment, society/culture and system in relation to the criticism against deterministic interpretations of the past.

Meanwhile, Pétursdóttir (2017) notes the risks of the Anthropocene as a discourse bringing back the thought pattern of man separate from nature, even in archaeology, however she also quotes Hodder who rather defines the Anthropocene as an increasing entanglement:

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of articles mentioning anthropocene and archaeology

(15)

”Over the course of human evolution, the expansion of entanglements has meant that all aspects of the environment have become human artefacts[i]. There is less and less outside the human that can ‘take care of itself.’ The whole environment (in the Anthropocene) is itself an artefact[i] needing care, fixing, and manipulation” (Hodder 2014, 32-33 in Pétursdóttir 2017:197).

Hodder implicates nature in the Anthropocene as completely without its own agency, and nature as helpless without human caretaking. This idea is the opposite of the dichotomy separating culture (human influence) and nature, giving no credit to nature as its own organism, growing and adapting to our influence. This lack of agency, according to the quote, would mean that nature is completely dependent on human involvement in the aftermath of our changes on the environment. Pétursdóttir agrees, stating that nature-culture is no longer a useful dichotomy for archaeologists and that, while affected by humans, the climate coincidentally needs human intellect to find solutions for its problems.

4.3. Anthropocene and the story of determinism

Is there a connection somehow between the deterministic view in processual thought and the emergence of Anthropocene as a modern concept of thinking?

Determinism, or rather, environmental determinism, builds on the idea that humans and culture is shaped by our environmental surroundings. This is interesting in relation to the concept of Anthropocene, which often relates to agency, specifically human agency and our impact on nature. This idea of determinism is therefore present in the Anthropocene debate, where we have to determine whether the agential relationship between us and nature points to our impact being large enough to invoke a new epoch.

If agency is viewed as a theory, one might argue that it has no place at all in processual thinking, not simply because of its meaning but also because of the evident lack of objectivism, e.g. it’s a concept that cannot be put through testing – in the definition of processual archaeology’s determinism and objectivism. So, in that sense there’s no way Anthropocene as a concept, or even as a metaphor, could be said to be deterministic? However, if the debate finally settles on that the consequences of Anthropocene are inevitable, and that these major changes in climate are inescapable – there is another kind of determinism that emerges. But still, there remains the question of how these changes came to be. Is there an Anthropocene without agency? Natural processes are in motion regardless of humans, but the challenges of climate change today are arguably man-made.

Environmental determinism is a topic of debate in both archaeology and related disciplines.

In this context, Franz Boas inspired archaeology with his thoughts on culture as chiefly self- sufficient, meaning separate from environment and personal intentions. This regarding of culture as a normative pattern held by the cultural members, secured by historical traditions and activity, is what Earle and Preucel (1987) calls cultural determinism. Another cultural approach was the culture-area concept. Taylor stressed archaeological the significance of impartial thinking and testing hypothesis’, predicting the coming scientific methods. Meanwhile, Lewis R. Binford, one of the ‘founders’ of processual archaeology, defined an organised approach to culture, where “culture was to be understood not as a set of norms held implicitly by a group but as the behavioural outcome of a population's adaptation to specific environmental conditions” (see discussion in Earle & Preucel 1987: 504).

Current environmental changes affect the discussion of returning to questions of processual archaeology. Determinism could be seen as a model of human behaviour pushed by processual archaeology, this would, contrary to post-processual archaeology, release us from agency.

Arponen cites Ian Hodder who states that processual archaeology established a deterministic view on nature and humans, in the sense that there are natural systems which we cannot affect.

We are powerless non-agents. Theory in processual archaeology is then trying to trace causal relationships in a deterministic world. This would mean discarding of cultural belief and agency (Arponen et al. 2019). The Anthropocene concept as discussed above risks moving archaeology

(16)

into the same determinism as processual archaeology – even though as discussed above the term actually has double meanings. Arponen et al. (2019) notes that we have moved on from both processual and post-processual archaeology, but the research is still to some extent modelled as deterministic or non-deterministic. They describe agency in natural changes as seen in one of two ways – either human agency as handling coming consequences, where we are agents but only so far as responding to natural events (deterministic), or, human-nature relationships are sociocultural and as such established.

(17)

4. Discourse analysis

The discourse analysis presented here is structured using Dryzek’s categories, with exception of the fifth category which I have added (see 2.3.). Furthermore, I will shortly analyse the use of Anthropocene from three different points of view, answering whether it is used mostly in an instrumental way – e.g. reference to the geological period and timing; as a reference to the mindset from which the Anthropocene emerged; or as referencing to the need of a new narrative of the Anthropocene. This could also be applied to further explain the use of archaeology, is the role defined as instrumental - helping to address the geological period and timing; reference to the mindset from which the Anthropocene emerged in the archaeological material or;

reference to the need of a new narrative of the Anthropocene – new ways of presenting the archaeological data. When it comes to agency, categories two and three already answer whether it is discussed, and how. The full list of which texts are analysed are shown in Appendix 1 and here I will refer to the analysed text by author and year. Worth noting is also that texts are of varying length, from approximately ten pages up to 30, the average number of pages in the texts are 17 pages. Some texts are published as referee journal papers and others as edited books which also affects the length.

5.1. Basic entities whose existence is recognized or constructed

In several texts Anthropocene is discussed as an established entity, both ’constructed’ and

’recognized’. Roberts et al. (2018) argue that it does not have to be an epoch but could merely act as a framework for viewing long-term anthropogenic influences. Climate science is referred to as a part of the of the Anthropocene history, both subjects are defined as being entities (similar as in the text by Sörlin and Lane (2018)). The same paper also discusses how climate is mediated through entities such as social institutions and politics. Science is a very well- established entity in itself and is described here as a “part” of planetary histories, and the Anthropocene.

In a discussion of ‘baselines’ by Hilding-Rydevik et al. (2018), baselines are explained as fundamental features of conservation policies, planning and management (Hilding-Rydevik et al. 2018). Baselines are seen here as socially constructed without exception, and therefore influenced by ”political agendas, economic realities, preconceived ideas, and sociocultural

‘understandings’ of human impacts on nature” (idem: 113). Conservation management in cultural landscapes show how baselines through merged choices of periods in time, use of land and species groups are influenced (Hilding-Rydevik et al. 2018).

5.2. Assumptions about natural relationships

Crumley et. al. (2018) describe our lives are described as influenced by “events”, “processes”

and “conditions” that are parts of an ecosystem that has been around since long before humans.

This statement assumes nature as having an effect on us, the relationship between human and environment is thus dependant on the impact of nature and has been throughout time. These events would also outlast humanity, meaning that the impact of natural processes is something which we cannot control. In Crumley’s (2018) paper she puts the idea of agency into the context of earlier determinism in archaeology, where objective scientific approaches are assumed to be sufficient for exposing patterns. Crumley (2018) further states that an objective approach would not consider objects or individuals or contemporary influence when interpreting the past.

(18)

Building on this, a theoretical history of agency in archaeology would show that the deterministic view on nature is not as active in Anthropocene thought.

The discussion on ‘baselines’ presented by Hilding-Rydevik et al. (2018) could reconstruct

“pre-human” or “natural” states which are products of socio-cultural presumptions and the idea, or ideology, of “naturalness” as focused on “pristine” environments is presented, this pristine state of nature has thrived in the nature-culture dichotomy of Western thought (idem.). Hilding- Rydevik et al. (2018) describes it as culture and nature being independent domains of reality where culture is artefacts made by humans and nature a separated environment from humans.

In Hilding-Rydevik et al. (2018: 120) the Anthropocene is discussed here as ”A contrasting view, based on Anthropocene research, is that it is not possible to distinguish between ‘nature by herself as a standard’ and ‘nature modified and polluted by humans’”. This formulation goes well with earlier texts discussed in the thesis, where the Anthropocene concept focus on debates surrounding the human impact on nature but at the same time attempts to break down the dichotomy between nature-humans. Hilding-Rydevik et al. (2018) also respond to the critique against using “natural” as meaning lack of influence by humans as another argue that humans themselves base their actions on natural processes, thus not being able to separate us from nature. Meanwhile Roberts et al. (2018) use the word ’anthropogenic’ in conjunction with discussions of nature suggesting that the human-environment relationship as natural. Most of the texts touch on this subject of nature and humans and their relationship now and throughout history. In the Anthropocene debate, this seems to be discussed in great part through a historical view.

5.3. Agents and their motives

Roberts et al. (2018) discuss the Anthropocene as the direct result of human influence, albeit assuming a hierarchy where humans are the dominating force (). However, by writing about the Anthropocene as effected already by humans in the Pleistocene, Roberts et al. (2018) in some way present humans as unknowing agents without motives, or what Dryzek in this category calls “ignorant population”. Roberts et al. (2018) explain how use of fire might be the result of climate change, a deterministic view where climate or other non-human agents are responsible.

Though, human agency is also implicated as a plausible cause of fires even in places where there is no archaeological evidence for the presence of humans.

In Sörlin and Lane’s (2018) text they discuss the history of ideas of climate change, stating that climate is described with “causal agency” today, noting that this agency separates it from climate as a historically changing agent. Throughout the text, there are explanations of agency that is not focused solely on humans, other agents are brought to light; technologies, animals, even societies and human diseases. Meanwhile, according to Elmqvist et al. (2018) for instance, cities are regional and global agents and they claim that the Anthropocene already carries the urban way of life. Thus, urban cities could perhaps be the agents Sörlin and Lane (2018) presents above, since technology and disease is not estranged from urban life. Cities and urban environments are a consequence of humanity’s drive towards a modern lifestyle, meaning that even though they now are agents on their own they are still a product of human agency. Barthel et al. (2019) also write on urbanism but different aspects of the agency of the Anthropocene is debated, from humanity as a whole being the reason for the negative changes associated with the concept, to the modern way of life since the Great Acceleration, and to global urbanization being the driving process of the Anthropocene as well as the mass consumption of the lifestyle following urban modernity . Barthel et al. 20 suggest that this contemporary life instead could be described in a more precise way by calling it the “Urban Anthropocene” or the “Urbanocene”

. Barthel et al. (2019) also discuss archaeology and its research that draw on past environments to give the understanding of how many lands until a recent time were what they call “pristine”, regarding these as land uncultivated since the Great Acceleration and that these lands’

ecosystems need to be protected from non-sustainable exploitation (idem.). Barthel et al. (2019)

(19)

therefore argue that sustainable management of existing agricultural land and associated ecosystems is crucial.

Crumley et al. (2018) present humans as a species acting as a major agent in the entity of the ecosystem. Crumley et al. (2018) refer to other disciplines treating landscapes as agents in their own rights where the landscape is entwined between opposite agents as human and biological versus non-human and non-biological. Crumley (2018), however, still describe humans as the main agents since agency is the capacity to operate in society and the study of agency is described as exploring constructors and situations that make decisions, thus stating that entities that can affect the outcome of events can be agents, this could be different sized groups of people, or entities such as objects or corporations (idem.).

Meanwhile in the paper by Boles et al. (2019) overgrazing is described as a land-change with considerable implications for rural living, posing a threat to the pastoralist societies and their vulnerability. Boles et al. (2019) claim that overgrazing could on its own be described as an agent in this text, while implicating that it is an action of grazing animals (also agents) perhaps pushed by human agents’ actions. In Boles et al. (2019) the agential relationship between pastoralists, livestock and anthropogenic impacts are described by the visualisation of removing pastoralists from landscapes, claiming that this is not equal to removing livestock.

Building on Boles et al. (2019) this would mean that there have been impacts on that environment other than overgrazing, and it is valuable to evaluate this issue of overgrazing by also looking at the long-term anthropogenic changes. Boles et al. (2019) thus describe both anthropogenic and natural factors was having affected the landscape, and they have most likely both had a role in forming the “precolonial woodland savanna” (2019: 5). The discussion by Boles et al. (2019) thus goes back and forth between the human impact on different aspects of the landscape and arguments for non-human involvement and this could mean that even though the text is not focused on the Anthropocene, the view on natural and human impact in this text does not favour one over the other.

5.4. Key metaphors and other rhetorical devices

In some texts there are parts wholly metaphorical, especially when it comes to discussing changes in climate as a crisis or similar, taking the reader to a level of visioning historical aspects – not directly connected to the subject, but very much in line with the convincing rhetoric, for example as in Sörlin & Lane (2018: 6) who ask”Did some imam in the Arab world or some Moghul leader in India, some aboriginal person in Australia, natives of Tierra del Fuego, or even people in Europe before the thirty-year war, define their predicament as a crisis?” . The metaphor seems to be central in the question of whether a crisis can be defined as worse than previous ones, specifically whether human made climate changes are worse than previous natural ones. By using phrases such as “massive expansion” and “profoundly ruptured”, Elmqvist et al. (2018) also create a dire rhetoric. Words as “accelerate” and

“concerns” show that their expectation of the urban future that they discuss is rather pessimistic.

I would argue that in Elmqvist et al. (2018) discussion of urbanism here could also be seen as an agent, as a growing movement with its own impact. Elmqvist et al. (2018) introduce

“Anthropocene narrative”, suggested as useful while also noting that it could be confusing, referring to the habit of this narrative in creating storylines which overlook diversity in the conditions of humanity. Elmqvist et al. (2018) apply a frequent use of numbers to clearly invest the reader in the impact of the topic of the text, stating ”Just consider the fact (Zalasiewicz et al. 2017) that, out of the 30 trillion tons of human materiality produced, cities account for (weigh, literally) 11 trillion tons, or 36 percent. Imagining the sheer scale of the urban is hard”

(Elmqvist et al. 2018: 3). Using this very narrative, Elmqvist et al. (2018) use of the word

’massive’ seems all the more fitting. An even more impressive scale of the impact of cities is painted when stating that even our language can’t cope with such numbers (idem). Elmqvist et al. (2018) further describe the Anthropocene as a very convincing “heuristic”, a method based

(20)

on untested theories which presents answers that are adequate for some questions or knowledge- based results.

Humans are in most texts described as a part of the ecosystem, first of all as explained by Crumley et al. (2018) as a being a part of the intricate network that constitutes planet earth’s relations. This ecosystem is described as “complex” and “enormous”. However, discussions have the similar tone of massiveness as described by Elmqvist et al. (2018). Elmqvist et al.

(2018) does not define the Anthropocene as a concept, it is used as a narrative, even described as a narrative (framework) by the authors. However, when relating it to the urban way of life it could also be seen as an instrumental use of the word, when talking about its “rupture” of the earth system. Meanwhile, Barthel et al. (2019) discuss food production and security by looking at land-use. They discuss turning land into agriculture as literally triggering climate change, blaming directly human land use and describing consequences as negative and leading to intense events of extreme proportions, even threatening with pest (Barthel et al. 2019). At first glance, this sounds ominous, “negative impact”, “loss”, “extreme events” – these are all contributing to a rather gloom rhetoric. At the same time, Sörlin (2018) discusses the Anthropocene debate using the words “ghosts” to highlight the re-emergence of environmental determinism, a rhetoric suggesting that it is something long gone and perhaps even not welcome in the Anthropocene concept today. It seems that whether the concept or idea behind Anthropocene or its possible consequences are discussed, a negative rhetoric outweighs the positive. There is an Anthropocene discourse, and irrespective of its definition or use, it is constructed through creative language that mainly creates a dire outlook on the topic.

Using similar words as Barthel et al. (2019), “enormous challenges” and “utmost importance” lets Crumley (2018) push the discourse of Anthropocene as a challenging concept in itself. Crumley (2018) mentions “clusters” of shared goals, wherein lies both researchers and whole communities. These shared goals are described by Crumley (2018) as “timely” because of the immense trials we humans face as humanity forms a new path towards the human-induced and not as predictable Anthropocene world.

5.5. Time scales and perspective

Roberts et al. (2018) claim that climate changes unchallenged by humans are seen through archaeological evidence and in order to maintain this new idea of Anthropocene, used as a concept or framework, we need to assess human influence over time (referring to temporal scale). Human agency is also discussed by Roberts et al. (2018) as relating to the need for a timescale evaluation to see if we in fact initiated the Anthropocene in tropical forests. In Boles et al. (2018) using words as “massive afforestation” and “collapse of populations” a narrative of war on nature is created, and us as agents being egoistic human beings according to Dryzek’s definitions. While using Anthropocene as an entity there is also a critical discussion towards the definition, called by Boles et al. (2018) a subjectively determined phase, discussing time scale and the need for a long-term view on human impact. Boles et al. (2018) argue human influence as not being the sole perpetrator behind changes in tropical forests, suggesting Anthropocene as a framework for looking at the scale of influence done by humans over time.

The extent of our impact is challenging for defining the beginning of Anthropocene and Boles et al. (2018) narrative becomes a story of Anthropocene as a useful tool, by definition of a framework for reviewing scales and anthropogenic influences on the natural world in the past.

Roberts et al. (2018) writes that by using powerful officials as archaeologists, the debate can strengthen their argument of human influence and modification in the long-term. Instead looking at timescales as history of knowledge Sörlin and Lane (2018) present ideas about climate change through history, focusing on the present by historicizing the science behind it.

Sörlin and Lane (2018) use a storytelling narrative is to present historical ideas behind climate science by referring to deterministic ideas since Hippocrates’ time, telling it as a long tradition of thought. This is not only a perspective on climate through history glasses, but could also be put into category two, where an assumption about natural relationships are made. The quote

(21)

shows not only a historical view on this, but also how the author views our modern relationship with climate as based on the history of the idea. Using different scales for analysing history is often referred to in the Anthropocene debate. Anthropocene is used as a reference to the mindset from which it emerged, by using it in the context of climate historical ideas.

There are retrospective discussions which doesn’t stretch back quite as far, by making a point of the growth of urban populations over merely a century, Elmqvist et al. (2018) state that the industrial, urban way of life has had an instrumental meaning for climate change, referencing to rupturing the geological earth system. ‘Urban life’ could here also be seen as an agent, and the earth system as a basic entity. On the other hand, Crumley et al. (2018) writes that we have already entered the Anthropocene, explaining it as an era of humans influencing environmental changes on a global scale. This directly assumes that Anthropocene is something new. It is not a reference to Anthropocene as a new idea or concept, but essentially a reference to the modern era, shifting the focus from nature’s effect on us to our effect on the environment.

In the same way, Barthel et al. (2019) uses ‘Anthropocene’ directly as the idea of a new era, giving future perspectives on how to handle this when it comes to food production, again discussing urban development as a danger in converting cropland close to urban living.

Relating to archaeology, Crumley (2018) in her single authored text lifts its role in the timing and defining of the Anthropocene since archaeologists recognise records of human entry on a planetary scale long before the start of the Industrial Revolution or ending of the Second World War, two periods which I have earlier presented as common denominators in the debate of the Anthropocene. Crumley’s (2018) text suggests engineering a future likened to the present, but she adds a caution in defining the Anthropocene, saying that the Anthropocene vacillates and need excessive changes to revise our pathway. Stating that the Anthropocene does not agree, Crumley (2018) narrates it as an intelligent entity with its own agenda.

Concerned with keeping knowledge of the past and meanwhile securing a stable future, Crumley (2018) shares her values of the relationship between past and future with archaeology and the past is presented as integrating the understanding we have on the human history and Earth system, this is described as a prompt task needing immediate attention, stressing the modern idea of global change and our impact, now and then (idem.). The relationship between humans as a species and Earth is described by Crumley (2018) as complicated and in need of a long-term evaluation, using the past to evaluate long-, medium-, and short-term roles, something which archaeology is useful for.

Anthropocene is also discussed by Sörlin (2018) through how and when the idea behind it emerged. Sörlin (2018) refers to the Anthropocene as an idea encompassing environmental changes by anthropogenic impact as a new language, also correlating it to the environmental ideas regarding human-nature in 1950s and 60s, stating a re-emergence of that narrative and suggesting the concept of Anthropocene as established while also pointing out that it is a new word. This new word encompasses even newer ideas and gives a name to the newly proposed geological epoch (Sörlin 2018). Anthropocene is therefore discussed by Sörlin (2018) as instrumental and not only a new idea or narrative, claiming that we are entering a post-fossil fuel transformed era. However, since this is only described by Sörlin (2018) as “likely”, we have not yet entered this era, therefore it stands to reason that the Anthropocene is not yet settled as the result of fossil fuel transformations.

Anthropocene is not always defined, however the relevance of it is sometimes still explained through other topics of natural relationships. According to Boles et al. (2019) the relevance of overgrazing in the interpretation of past socio-environmental dynamics is here based on interpretations of the archaeological record, giving spatial-temporal context to the history of pastoral landscapes which gives insight as to what is human-environmental effects and vice versa. Much in the same way as many of the other texts, Boles et al. (2019) discuss the history of landscapes as having to be understood through long-term historical structures, looking at the patterns in time relating to human-environment interactions

(22)

6. Discussion and Conclusion

As have been discussed here the concept of the Anthropocene has clearly shifted from a mere instrumental definition to a broader one as it has increased in popularity in archaeology. The texts present Anthropocene in a variety of ways, indicating that the authors use it to reinforce their arguments, fitting into their own narratives. Some of the texts only use the actual word

‘Anthropocene’ once, however, it is still used in a context where their objective can be assessed.

Anthropocene is referred to as a relatively new idea concerning the modern mindset and way of living which led to the Anthropocene, and also the need for adapting to new mindsets. It is also clear that the issue of determinism is grappled with in many different ways.

6.1. In what way is Anthropocene presented and discussed?

Only some texts actually define the concept, in one sense rather using Anthropocene mostly for pushing their ideas or using it as a framework, thereby referencing to Anthropocene as a tool for contemporary science. Anthropocene is also introduced as a ‘new era’ and nothing else, with no description of the concept, only its instrumental properties, referring to the concept from a geological, natural perspective. The modern thinking regarding historical ecology as a new multidisciplinary science, however, could be a marker of the reference of Anthropocene as a new era, wherein the “urgent task” of long-term views in historical ecology and archaeology lies. The concept is also used as a contrasting view on the nature-human dichotomy. The use of the broad description “Anthropocene research” makes it hard to determine their meaning. It is unclear if the concept it used as the modern way of researching nature versus human, as the new way of life in which the meaning of nature and human has shifted on its own, or simply as a new narrative for studying these issues? What all of these definitions and non-definitions have in common is the way of using Anthropocene as a new narrative, sometimes a new era, and sometimes the new word for an older concept of human impact on nature. Not depending on how many times it occurs or if it is defined or not, it is always used in the context of human and nature, discussing our effect on environment and vice versa.

What also differs in the IHOPE texts is the space Anthropocene is given. Some only mention the term once, although the discussion might be akin to other texts where it is approached more directly. In these cases, where a text uses ’human impact’ when talking about the environment, I would argue that the same ideas as human agency in the Anthropocene are presented. By looking at the analysis, it is obvious that there is a pervading pattern of the need for long-term perspectives and scales of impact. In some ways, many still seem to be grappling with the concept while presenting their own thoughts, one reason might be that it is still in the process of definition. Therefore, the authors can easily discuss it in an almost arbitrary way, to fit into the narrative of their discourse.

6.2. How is agency discussed in the texts?

In one IHOPE text analysed here, Anthropocene is used as an argument against determinism and as an entity which should steer the path we are on in order to make necessary changes in the future. The future narrative is not particularly hopeful but manages to enlighten the Anthropocene as a positive concept of change. It could therefore be said to be used in a way that refers to Anthropocene as a concept which new ideas can emerge from.

A Discourse Analysis of Anthropocene in IHOPE Publications