#theoreticalblogpost

[planetaryawarenessproject]

THE PLANETARY COMMONS

By Nicole Horgan 

By aligning the concepts of the planetary and the commons, curator Nicola Triscott offers a distinctive rejoinder to the dominant interpretive framework of the Anthropocene and it’s oft criticised limited direction and political agency in addressing this irrefutable age of ecological crisis.[1]In order to fully discern the potentially of the entangled concept of the planetary commons in the face of this crisis and its relevance to our exhibition, it is beneficial to dissect and assess these initial concepts and their interconnections as well as the hybrid planetary commons concept’s position within the wider ‘planetary turn’ in contemporary criticism and theory.[2]

The planetary was originally developed by Postcolonial theorist Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak to name an ethical alternative to globalisation, seeking not to ‘generate an evasive figure, but rather…to [present] an inexhaustible diversity of epistemes’ which would enable us to think differently about being human and becoming collective.[3]The all-encompassing lens of the planetary enables us to ‘transcend the uniquely human concerns of the global’ and this is particularly relevant in relation to the current ecological crisis. In relation to this, artist Jennie Gabrys posits the planetary as a distinctly ecological concept that is ‘more of an indeterminate condition and set of relations that sparks new encounters with collective inhabitations that do not turn into…the usual designations of environmentalism’.[4]Concurrently, Elias and Moraru of The Planetary Turn also suggest that the planetary refocuses our attention from the regulative principles of the globe, with their ‘uncomfortable associations with paternalism, colonialism, and monopoly capital’, to the ‘stewardship’ of the planet and ecocritically informed discourse.[5]

With this notion of stewardship in mind, it is particularly compelling to unite the planetary with the concept of the commons. The commons is defined as a shared resource in which all stakeholders have an equal interest and it intrinsically offers a more equitable, environmentally aware and intrinsically holistic view of society.[6]The global commons - of which planetary commons is an elaboration of - applies this idea of the commons to international, supranational or global domains in which common-pool resources are found. International law identifies four global commons: the high seas, the atmosphere, Antarctica, and outer space.[7]Triscott’s use of the term planetary commons denotes within it the natural resources of the planet, common-pool resources previously stated as well as the spaces within which these resources are found.[8]This incorporation of the commons brings into question our capacity for response, based on a shared sense of responsibility in which we are all equally held accountable for our actions and their impact on our society and planet. Moreover, the planetary aspect acknowledges that the designation of the term commoner can also be applicable to a wider network of ‘actants’, not only including humans but also non-human animals, plant life, microorganisms, technology, geology, ecosystems, atmosphere.[9]What makes the planetary commons so pertinent is its emphasis on an expanded and collective sense of ecological, social and affective responsibility and reciprocality in the face of these increasing ecological concerns.

It is incredibly valuable to our work as ‘planet-wary’ curators to understand the planetary commons beyond its definition as a concept and as an interpretive framework and curatorial model. This importance can be justified by virtue of its commitment to reciprocity, its interdisciplinary potential to produce knowledge concerning contemporary environmental and social issues and its potential implications outside of the art space. As the images and ideas that we consume are important for feeding the collective social imaginary of the planet, it is of great consequence to embrace the planetary commons as a curatorial strategy so that a greater repertoire of images, texts, and actions relating to ecology, technology and politics can ultimately have an impact on shaping this imaginary, showing how we can no longer be passive in our attitudes and instead suggesting directions for collective environmental and political action.

REFERENCES 

[1]Nicola Triscott, ‘Curating contemporary art in the framework of the planetary commons’, The Polar Journal, 7:2, 2017

[2]Amy J. Elias, Christian Moraru, The Planetary Turn: Relationalility and Geoaesthetics in the Twenty-First Century, Northwestern University Press, 2015

[3]Jennie Gabrys, ‘Becoming Planetary’, Accumulation, e-flux, 2 October 2018

[4]ibid                                                    

[5]A. J. Elias & C. Moraru, The Planetary Turn,xxiii

[6]A. J. Elias, ‘The Commons . . . and Digital Planetarity’, The Planetary Turn: Relationalility and Geoaesthetics in the Twenty-First Century, Northwestern University Press, 2015, 37

[7]Triscott, Curating contemporary art…, 375

[8]ibid

[9]ibid

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Amy J. Elias, Christian Moraru, The Planetary Turn: Relationalility and Geoaesthetics in the Twenty-First Century, Northwestern University Press, 2015

Jennie Gabrys, ‘Becoming Planetary’, Accumulation, e-flux, 2 October 2018 

Nicola Triscott, ‘Curating contemporary art in the framework of the planetary commons’, The Polar Journal, 7:2, 2017, 374-390

FURTHER READING 

Buck, Susan J. The Global Commons: An Introduction. Washington, DC: Island, 1998.

Demos, T.J. Against the Anthropocene, Visual Culture and Environment Today. Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2017.

Elias, Amy J. “Art and the Commons.” ASAP/Journal 1, no. 1 (2016): 3–15.

Roberts, John. “Art, Neoliberalism and the Fate of the Commons.” Academia.edu (2015). https://www.academia.edu/25319592/Art_Neoliberalism_and_the_Fate_of_the_Commons1

[planetaryawarenessproject]

Planetary Storytangling

By Amy Gowen

“It matters what stories we use to tell other stories with…it matters what stories make worlds and what worlds make stories.”[1] (Donna Haraway, Staying with the Trouble)

As long as there have been humans on this living planet, storytelling in all its forms has existed as a way of imagining, disseminating and producing information, which, in turn, has successfully aided in creating our perceptions of the world picture. Brian Boyd has argued that storytelling serves evolutionary purposes, as life itself is made of stories through which meanings are differentially enacted, and over thousands of years, humans have transformed their experiences, hopes, and fears into such storytelling.[2] Given this, it is important now, more than ever, to investigate the ways in which we currently tell stories about global environmental change.

The mediums of visual, written and sonic storytelling have been consistently used to frame and investigate the Anthropocene, yet humans still suffer from reductionist viewpoints of homo-centrism and a “crisis of imagination.”[3] Donna Haraway acknowledges this crisis and emphasizes the importance of intertwined worldings of Natures, cultures, subjects and objects. This implies that as crucial as storytelling is to understanding our planet and existence in this world, it also runs the risk of relentless contingency if limited to purely human-centric narratives.[4] In agreement with Haraway’s emphasis on intertwined worldings, William Connolly believes that the preciousness of classical humanism must be challenged through entangled humanism, adopting a “we” instead of “I” stance that includes humans, non-humans, organic and non-organic matters in the stories we tell.[5]

In terms of curating, the detailed mapping of story/ies that are played out within exhibition planning, alongside the collection of relevant artefacts to present, illustrate particular and specific stories. This said, using our current forms of storytelling as a curatorial approach runs the risk of neglecting narratives that can aid in evolving our perspective of the living planet. A thorough rethink is required, which has the courage to question even our most basic cultural narratives. Planetary Storytangling is my devised strategy of rethinking narrative transfer that I see as moving away from the human-focused to instead incorporate layered, multidimensional storytelling that includes all life upon this Earth. By interweaving Worlds, Natures and Cultures as part of a diverse species narrative, Planetary Storytangling encourages active voices and domains of agency that are other-than-human. Such a strategy has emerged already through a range of narrative transfers. Examples in literature include Richard Powers’ The Overstory which places trees as protagonists beside humans, and contemplates not only the perspective of nature but what it means to consider such an alternative viewpoint. Another illustration is Sasha Litvintseva’s visual narrative, The Stability of System which is based on the volcanic natural landscapes of Lanzarote that assumes the agency of storyteller throughout the film. By involving Planetary Storytangling in art, alternative existences, identities and voices can be explored to encourage out-of-the-box thinking and new approaches to understand our living planet, in an attempt to formulate what Bruno Latour calls “our common geostory.”[6]

With the emergence of Planetary Storytangling also comes a responsibility of language choice and dissemination. It is crucial to base our stories upon active and responsible discourse with an understanding of how knowledge is situated and words are framed within the contemporary environment. This is in line with Zoltán Boldizsár Simon’s belief that, “we fail to attempt to understand if we simply condemn and deprecate the occurrence of familiar words without making efforts to track the shifting meanings.”[7] For example, the Anthropocene as a term has been criticized as evolving to become synonymous with human consumption and destruction, straying away from its geological foundations and meaning. This, in turn, adds to reductionist viewpoints and the “crisis of imagination.” By choosing terms such as “ecocide” and “planetary annihilation” we can instead begin to acknowledge the planet as living, breathing and organic, reducing the distance between human and other species of the Earth. From this understanding, the language we choose is just as important as the tangling of diverse species narratives in order to achieve Planetary Storytangling. Planetary Storytangling can play an integral role in curating and framing our upcoming exhibition The Plantery Awareness Project. By using various art-forms that entangle voices, agencies, fictions and non-fictions through written, visual and sonic narratives, and by incorporating a diverse range of species, we can aid in encouraging a stepping away from the homo-centric as part of a conscious unlearning process, to instead embody the planet-wary. As Haraway states, “it matters what worlds make stories.”[8] By entangling and intertwining worlds, narratives and species stories within our exhibition through the strategy of Planetary Storytangling we can help disseminate and facilitate knowledge and experience that draws less from humans and more from others who reside on the living planet. In doing so we can re-imagine the world in richer terms that will allow us to find ourselves in dialogue with other species’ needs and other kinds of minds.

References

[1] Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene, Duke University Press 2016, p.12

[2] Emmet, Robert. Whose Anthropocene?: Revisiting Dipesh Chakrabarty’s “Four Theses”. 2016 p.83

[3] Emmet, Robert. Whose Anthropocene?: Revisiting Dipesh Chakrabarty’s “Four Theses”. 2016 p.83

[4] Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene, Duke University Press 2016, p.13

[5] Connolly, William E. Facing the Planetary: Entangled Humanism and the Politics of Swarming. 2017, p.33

[6] Latour, Bruno. “Anthropology at the Time of the Anthropocene: A Personal View of What Is to Be Studied.” The Anthropology of Sustainability, 2017, 35-49

[7] Simon, Zoltán B. “The limits of Anthropocene narratives.” European Journal of Social Theory, 2018

[8] Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene, Duke University Press 2016, p.12

Further Reading

-Plumwood, Val. "Nature in the Active Voice." Australian Humanities Review, no. 46 (2009) 

-Latour, Bruno. "Anthropology at the Time of the Anthropocene: A Personal View of What Is to Be Studied." The Anthropology of Sustainability, 2017, 35-49.

-Kerrigan, Dylan. "Donna Haraway: Story Telling for Earthly Survival Fabrizio     

-Terranova, dir. 81 min. English. Brooklyn, NY: Icarus Films, 2017." American Anthropologist 120, no. 4 (2018)

Bibliography

-Bonneuil, Christophe. "The Geological Turn." The Anthropocene and the Global Environmental Crisis, 2015, 17-31

-Connolly, William E. "Facing the Planetary." 2017. 

-Boscov-Ellen, Dan. "Whose Universalism? Dipesh Chakrabarty and the Anthropocene." Capitalism Nature Socialism, 2018, 1-14. 

-Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene, Duke University Press 2016

-Latour, Bruno. “Anthropology at the Time of the Anthropocene: A Personal View of What Is to Be Studied.” The Anthropology of Sustainability, 2017, 35-49

-Simon, Zoltán B. “The limits of Anthropocene narratives.” European Journal of Social Theory, 2018

[planetaryawarenessproject]

Morally anthropocentric

By Claire van der Mee

The naming of a new epoch, namely the Anthropocene, coincides with the reluctant acceptance that humans have a direct effect on the Earth’s eco-system. This comprehension leads to an array of emotions ranging from guilt and hopelessness, towards hope for innovation and change. Whether identifying this age as the aforementioned sparks optimism or pessimism in human attitudes, those who admit to the title of the Anthropocene agree that this is due to mankind’s anthropocentrism. As we encourage everyone to take on the ‘Planet-wary perspective’ we are simultaneously a-ware that we too are bound by and limited to our human attitudes. [1]Yet perhaps it is precisely this anthropocentrism, this viewing and interpreting everything in terms of human experience and values, which we can use to our advantage in order to tackle the issues of the Anthropocene. Perhaps it is time for us as a human-species to become ‘morally anthropocentric’.

As a member of the human-species our abilities of perception are of course limited to those of the human. We are constrained by the impediments of our senses and know through scientific research that other species have a multitude of other capabilities; senses we can only begin to imagine understanding. Yet, like our other Earthly companion-species, we too are sentient beings. And it is through this sentience that we learn and grow and when applying extra sensitivity towards other-than-human species we can experience the sensation of their growth.

“The space of sympathy—which, in this case, is not to be interpreted as “feeling affection for” but as “feeling in harmony with”—needs to be evaluated according to the character considered in the comparison and the species involved in the comparison” (Marchesini, 2015).

When studying the non-human we can employ ‘critical anthropomorphism’[2]to achieve sustainability[3]within our relations to the things around us. Yet as Marchesini makes clear, this sustainability can only be achieved when regarding the things around us as becoming-with[4]rather than living-by. For example, think of the non-humans that you are familiarized with: a plant that lives with you in your home or a pet, such as a cat. One can sense if the environment is having a positive effect on this being. You may project human-emotions on these beings such as satisfaction, (dis)comfort, or sadness and perhaps attributing these feelings onto non-human species is flawed (within reason; their frame of reference is different than ours thus their reaction to our actions can be contextualized within completely different frameworks), but when applying this sensitivity (or critical anthropomorphism) one will recognize growth, stagnation or agitation.

This critical anthropomorphism can further be employed when considering the relations we have with the non-sentient things around us. In Hache and Latour’s text, Morality or Moralism (2010) they reflect upon Michel Serres’ text Statues and the myth of Sisyphus[5]and James Lovelock’s The Revenge of Gaia.

Serres draws attention to the fact that we as humans, when interpreting the myth of Sisyphus, are fixated on the narrative of crime and punishment rather than paying any attention whatsoever to the rock, which Sisyphus rolls up the hill eternally; the rock in all interpretations is a replaceable object.

“From the depths of the ages, from the pit of hell, from an abyss of suffering, the tale repeats: the thing returns!—and we Narcissuses speak only of him who rolls it away. What if, for once, we looked at the rock that is invariably present before our eyes, the stubborn object lying in front of us? . . .” (Serres in Hache & Latour, 2010: 329)

Lovelock, likewise, does an interesting appeal on anthropomorphism by renaming the Earth ‘Gaia’.[6]By personifying the Earth we enter into a complex relationship with Gaia; a relationship where we realize that our actions have effects and in order to have a healthy relationship with her we must act sensitively, sympathetically, critically and with morality and question what Gaia will do if we do not maintain a healthy relationship with her.

“Until this change of heart and mind happens we will not instinctively sense that we live on a live planet that can respond to the changes we make, either by cancelling the changes or by cancelling us. Unless we see the Earth as a planet that behaves as if it were alive, at least to the extent of regulating its climate and chemistry, we will lack the will to change our way of life and to understand that we have made it our greatest enemy.” (Lovelock, taken from Hache & Latour, 2010)

“Anthropocentric attitudes are limiting us in our ability to fully comprehend the critical turning point that our living planet is currently experiencing. In other words: we cannot solve problems with the same kind of thinking that created them.” [7]As Serres points out, it is time that we start including the rock into our narrative instead of stubbornly assuming that the rock is not a participant (or fellow-victim) in Sisyphus’ punishment. Diminishing our anthropocentrism starts by acknowledging it and realizing that we live-with not by the things around us. We as humans have an effect on our Earth, but the relationships we have with the things around us are also a part of what shapes us and makes us who we are. We may not be able to get the human out of our anthropocentric attitude but we can change our attitude. By applying our human-centered morals and values onto the things we are surrounded with (not by) and embracing these things as subjects within a mutual relationship, perhaps we can achieve a sense of urgency and realize that we need more sympathy and sensitivity towards every thing: anthropocentrism, but in combination with sustainable morality.

[1]This sentence is taken from our curatorial vision & mission statement

[2]The term ‘critical anthropomorphism’ comes from Marchesini’s text Against Anthropocentrism. Non-human Otherness and the Post-human Project, but he in turnhas taken the term from: Bekoff M et al (2002) The Cognitive animal: Empirical and theoretical perspectives on animal cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge

[3]“At the same time, every type of anthropomorphization needs to be evaluated in terms of sustainability on the basis of a robust scientific knowledge of the examined species, under a taxonomic, ecological and ethological profile” (Marchesini, 2015)

[4]“Becoming-with, not becoming, is the name of the game; becoming-with is how partners are, in Vinciane Despret’s terms, rendered capable.Ontologically heterogeneous partners become who and what they are in relational material-semiotic worlding. Natures, cultures, subjects, and objects do not preexist their intertwined worldings” (Haraway, Donna Jeanne. “Playing String Figures with Companion Species.” In Staying With the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene, 9-29. 2016)

[5]From Greek mythology: Zeus punished Sisyphus and his punishment was to push a rock uphill for eternity: every time Sisyphus reaches the top of the hill the rock rolls back down and Sisyphus has to start again.

[6]Stemming from Greek mythology as well: Gaia is personification of Earth, the first deity from whom all others sprang and was born of Chaos.

[7] Quote from our Vision & Mission statement

References:

Marchesini, R. Nanoethics (2015) 9: 75. https://doi-org.proxy.library.uu.nl/10.1007/s11569-015-0220-7

Hache, E., and B. Latour. “Morality or Morlaism?: An Excerise in Sensitisation.” Common Knowledge 16, no. 2 (2010), 311-330.

Further reading: 

Haraway, Donna Jeane. “Playing String Figures with Companion Species.” In Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene, 9-29. 2016.

Serres, Michel, and Randolph Burks. Statues The Second Book of Foundations. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. 

Lovelock, James. The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back - and How We Can Still Save Humanity. London: Penguin, 2007. 

[planetaryawarenessproject]

PLANETARY PERFORMATISM

Merel Overgaag – 3997405

Due to our situatedness within time and space, human beings are not able to access the earth nor the universe as a whole. Therefore, everything we know about the planetary - about the world as a living planet including celestial bodies, multi-species and the biosphere - is formed by representations. It is a result of a staging of knowledge, grouped under the header of science or politics. Inevitably, these representations are framed. That is, the ‘representor’, whether it be a journalist, a politician, a teacher or a scientist, carries out a planetary narrative that is both contextually dependent and influenced by interest.  

Examples of these performances of the planetary range from president Donald Trump who has openly denied global warming, on to the earth’s famous Blue Marble picture and the environmentalist activist connotation it got in the 1970’s. They range from history books presenting Darwinian evolution and others presenting Intelligent Design. Another example would be the late Medieval church resisting the Copernican Revolution by holding tightly to the geocentric world view. Or, lastly, cartographic attempts to map the earth, where certain continents seem to be strategically proportioned slightly bigger or smaller than their actual size. As a concept to understand how these phenomena are all forms of staging, I suggest the term Planetary Performatism. In the next sections I will contextualize this concept through the work of several authors.

In Shooting the Moon, Brian Willems lays out multiple cinematographic strategies that have been used to perform the moon. Through analysis of films like Le Voyage dans La Lune, Destination Moon and Apollo 18, Willems argues that historical lunar representations all give different narratives that are often in conflict with one another.[1] Willems uses the metaphor of a Cubist painting to explain the incapability of fully grasping this celestial body. Just as the Cubists did, the original image is cut up and rearranged into new forms. The real object is never really there, it is performed.[2] In line with this, Bigg and VanHoutte offer a historical overview of performance of astronomic knowledge. Astronomy has always been one of the most popular fields of investigation. It has been serving both those in search of myth and meaning and those pursuing scientific truth and progress. Therefore, ‘astronomical spectacles often evoked history, the history of interpreting constellations as guides to human destiny, in Ancient or distant cultures.’[3] Because of its hybrid character, the line between ‘sensational entertainment’ and ‘scientific demonstration’ of the cosmos was rather blurred in the 19th and early 20th century.[4] Cervera takes on a similar approach by focusing on the relationship between performing space and knowledge production.[5] He sees a strong correlation between the two because ‘we [humans] bridge cosmological immensity and our limited capacities to apprehend it by way of enacting Space at our spatial, temporal and perceptual scales, effectively making it appear as a sensible and knowable entity.’[6] What is required, he says, is a critical attitude towards the scientific, geopolitical and formal correctness of the multiple forms of staging space.[7]

From a more linguistic line of thought is Timothy Clark, who argues how the psychology of narrative is problematic in representing the planetary. In his argument he refers to George Marshalls experiment on climate change denial, that shows how exactly the same narrative structures are being deployed both by the camp of environmental activist as well as by those in denial of climate change. The narrative structure that turns out most compelling always contains an issue, a cause, an effect, a perpetrator and a motive.[8] Clark concludes that we must be attentive to the suggestively indisputable stories by authoritative figures about the ‘real state of the world’.[9] In line with this or perhaps as an answer, Karen Barad actually pleads for performativity in research, as an alternative to linguistic representation. While acknowledging the elusiveness of the planetary to human perception, Barad argues we have become obsessed with language in our eagerness to explain the physical world.[10] By proposing a ‘posthuman performativity’, she instead hopes to shift the focus to practices, doings, and actions as a means to gain knowledge. Precisely because ‘practices of knowing and being are not isolatable, but rather they are mutually implicated.’[11]

It seems that an integral part of exploring the planetary is to take into account its performative aspects. Planetary Performatism could serve as a guiding concept in this task. It could stimulate literacy towards the narratives and sensitivity towards the performances by authorities and so-called experts. Indeed, the planetary is ubiquitous and encompassing, omniscient and mysterious. It is hybrid and fierce; infinite in its treasures and myriad in its lifeforms. Perhaps a next step would be to look for performative tools that aim to capture exactly these qualities.

Suggestions for further reading

On Posthumanist Performativity, Spectacular Astronomy, Astroaesthetics, Planetary Astronomy, Performing the Moon  

[1] Brian Willems, Shooting the Moon (Winchester: Zero Books, 2015), PP.

[2] Willems, Shooting the Moon, 11.  

[3] Charlotte Bigg and Kurt Vanhoutte, "Spectacular Astronomy," Early Popular Visual Culture 15, no. 2 (2017): 118, doi:10.1080/17460654.2017.1319037.

[4] Bigg and Vanhoutte, "Spectactular Astronomy," 115.

[5] FELIPE CERVERA, "Astroaesthetics: Performance and the Rise of Interplanetary Culture," Theatre Research International 41, no. 03 (2016): 259, doi:10.1017/s0307883316000353.

[6] CERVERA, "Astroaesthetics," 259.

[7] CERVERA, "Astroaesthetics," 259.

[8] Timothy Clark, Ecocriticism on the Edge: The Anthropocene As a Threshold Concept (2016), 178-179.

[9] Clark, Ecocriticism on the Edge, 178.

[10] Karen Barad, "Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter," Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28, no. 3 (2003): 801-802, doi:10.1086/345321.

[11] Barad, "Posthumanist Performativity," 829.

Bibliography

Barad, Karen. "Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28, no. 3 (2003), 801-831. doi:10.1086/345321.

Bigg, Charlotte, and Kurt Vanhoutte. "Spectacular Astronomy." Early Popular Visual Culture15, no. 2 (May/June 2017), 115-124. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17460654.2017.1319037.

Butler, Judith. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York [u.a.]: Routledge, 2008.

CERVERA, FELIPE. "Astroaesthetics: Performance and the Rise of Interplanetary Culture." Theatre Research International 41, no. 03 (2016), 258-275. doi:10.1017/s0307883316000353.

Clark, Timothy. "Imaging and Imagining the Whole Earth: The Terrestrial as Norm." In Ecocriticism on the Edge: The Anthropocene As a Threshold Concept, 29-46. Bloomsbury: Bloomsbury Academic, 2016.

Cook, Alexander. “The Use and Abuse of Historical Reenactment: Thoughts on Recent Trends in Public History.” Criticism 46:3 (2004) 487-496 2. Martin, Carol. Theatre of the Real. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Limited. 2013. ProQuest Ebook.

Elias, Amy J., and Christian Moraru. "Archetypologies of the Human: Planetary Performatism, Cinematic Relationality, and Iñárritu’s Babel." In The Planetary Turn; Relationality and Geoaesthetics in the Twenty-First Century, 89-105. Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 2015.

Elias, Amy J., and Christian Moraru. "Planetarity, Performativity, Relationality: Claire Denis’s Chocolat and Cinematic Ethics." In The Planetary Turn; Relationality and Geoaesthetics in the Twenty-First Century, 107-124. Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 2015.

Nitzke, Solvejg, and Nicolas Pethes. "A Whole Earth Monument; Planetary Mediation in Dietmar Dath’s The Abolition of Species." In Imagining Earth Concepts of Wholeness in Cultural Constructions of Our Home Planet, 155-170. Bielefeld: Transcript-Verlag, 2017.

Schorn, Ronald A. Planetary Astronomy: From Ancient Times to the Third Millennium. College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 1999.

Willems, Brian. Shooting the Moon. Winchester: Zero Books, 2015.

[planetaryawarenessproject]

SPACESHIP EARTH

By Fiep Nijhof (5551315)

Richard Buckminster Fuller, an American theorist, author, inventor and futurist, describes Earth as a travelling planet; introducing the concept of Spaceship Earthone year after the Apollo 8 Spaceship travelled the moon and captured Earth as a whole planet.[1][2]Proposing the belief that “we are all astronauts,” Fuller examines the Earth travelling through space, as it is moving “sixty thousand miles an hour around the sun and is also spinning axially.”[3]

As Fuller puts it, Spaceship Earth allows us to keep humans alive by giving us radiation of the sun that travels in company with us and by giving us vegetation to eat, and to keep other living species alive with the same benefits. This is all “part of the invention of the Spaceship Earth.”[4]However, Fuller proposes that humans never received an instruction book for this time travelling machine.He writes the spaceship “is a mechanical vehicle, just as is an automobile. If you own an automobile, you realize that you must put oil and gas into it, and you must put water in the radiator and take care of the car as a whole.”[5]We have to take care of this mechanical vehicle we live in; nevertheless, to date “we have not been seeing our Spaceship Earth as an integrally-designed machine which to be persistently successful must be comprehended and serviced in total.”[6]

Considering we did not receive an instruction book, we have to discover how to care for Spaceship Earth including taking care of ourselves. To maintain our spaceship and the species on our planet likewise, we should find our place in a “cyclical ecological system which is capable of continuous reproduction.”[7]Nevertheless, the Earth does not have “unlimited reservoirs of anything, either for extraction or for pollution.”[8]Historian Dipesh Chakrabarty writes we found ways to maintain human beings in the past decades, but issues like the Industrial Revolution caused an exhaustion of the Earth.[9]This process of exhaustion is leading towards climate change, as we disturb parametric conditions for human survival.[10]We thought human impact was not large enough to change Earth processes. Before we started cutting down trees and burning fossil fuels, we did not have this impact indeed.[11]We were biological agents. This concept, used by environmental historians, explains our limited influence on the environment. The human effect on Earth as biological agent is not imagined on a geological scale.[12]However, as Chakrabarty explores, we became geological agentswhen we had “reached numbers and invented technologies that are on a scale large enough to have an impact on the planet itself.”[13]This human geological agency is how Chakrabarty describes the Anthropocene.[14]

To make sure we protect Spaceship Earth from climate change today, we have to become planetary subjectsrather than geological agents. This concept, initiated by Spivak in 2003, suggests humans working together with other species as a collective, rather than regarding themselves from an anthropocentric view.[15]It is the consequence of humans becoming aware of their impact. Instead of opposing ourselves to other-than-humans implying we are the only geological agents, we have to cooperate to act on “behalf and in the name of the planet.”[16]This cooperation helps us to keep the biological life-sustaining processes of Spaceship Earth ongoing; to “impound the life-regenerating energy for us to adequate amount.”[17]For example, humans can learn from other species that eat vegetation humans cannot(yet)eat. We should look beyond our geological agency to prevent Spaceship Earth becoming what Fuller calls Poluto.[18]

What does Spaceship Earth indicate fifty years after Apollo 8 witnessed an Earthrise for the first time? Nowadays we travel within our spaceship with cars, airplanes and public transport, but we can also travel beyond our Spaceship Earth. We should celebrate that, since 1968, not only the Earth is a spaceship, but that we have built actual spaceships to travel through space. The ability of traveling through space creates the possibility to take an “over-, under-, outer-, and inner view of the living planet that we share.”[19]From a different perspective, we can become conscious of the actions we need to take to maintain Spaceship Earth.[20]Humans are able to distance themselves from the Earth in order to look at issues like climate change; in order to “understand the “big picture.””[21][22]This means beingplanet-wary. It allows us to make “space to abstract from the here and now, and to imagine the there and then.”[23]

Spaceship Earth nowadays is still a relevant concept when we think about maintaining it. When we observe this planet as mechanical vehicle like Fuller, we encourage ourselves to be aware that the Earth is not indestructible.There is no right answer yet to how we can provide enough oil for species as well as for the spaceship. However, taking a different view of the living planet that we share and being planet-wary might help us finding instructions for the instruction book. Furthermore, we have a chance to maintain our Spaceship when we respond to current issues as a collective: humans and other-than-humans should work together as planetary subjects.[24]As Fuller encourages us: “go to work, and above all co-operate and don’t hold back on one another or try to gain at the expense of another.”[25]

See alsoPlanetary, Earth, Anthropocene, Geopolitics, Overview effect, Non-human agency

[1]Cheyenne Derksen Schroeder. (n.d.). Earthrising: Cosmosphere hosts astronauts, crew in Apollo 8 50th anniversary event. Retrieved from http://www.hutchnews.com/news/20181202/earthrising-cosmosphere-hosts-astronauts-crew-in-apollo-8-50th-anniversary-event   [2]R.B. Fuller. (1969). Operating manual for spaceship earth. (Southern Illinois University Press: Carbondale): 14 [3]Fuller: 15 [4]Ibidem [5]Idem: 16 [6]Ibidem [7]K.E. Boulding. In Jarrett, H., & Resources for the Future. (1966). Environmental quality in a growing economy: Essays from the Sixth RFF Forum. (Baltimore: Published for Resources for the Future by the Johns Hopkins Press): 7-8 [8]Ibidem [9]Dipesh Chakrabarty. (2009), ‘The Climate of History: Four Theses’, Critical Inquiry, 35: 207 [10]Idem, 218 [11]Naomi Oreskes, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?” in Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren, ed. Joseph F. C. Dimento and Pamela Doughman (Cambridge, Mass., 2007): 93 [12]Chakrabarty: 205-206 [13]Idem: 206-207 [14]Idem: 209 [15]Maja and Reuben Fowkes. “Planetary.” In ​Posthuman Glossary. ​ (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018): 319 [16]Ibidem [17]Fuller: 15 [18]Idem: 24 [19]See Curatorial Vision and Mission, “Planetary Awareness for Earthlings in a Post-global Age.” [20]The improvement of building spaceships lead to improvements in maintaining our own Spaceship Earth, such as creating Water Purification Systems. [21]Julia Calderone. (2015). Something profound happens when astronauts see Earth from space for the first time. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/overview-effect-nasa-apollo8-perspective-awareness-space-2015-8?international=true&r=US&IR=T [22]Fuller: 14 [23]See Curatorial Vision and Mission, “Planetary Awareness for Earthlings in a Post-global Age.” [24]Fowkes: 319 [25]Idem: 44

NOTES

Boulding, K. E., In Jarrett, H., & Resources for the Future. (1966). Environmental quality in a       growing economy: Essays         from the Sixth RFF Forum. Baltimore: Published for Resources for the Future by the Johns Hopkins Press

Calderone, Julia. (2015). Something profound happens when astronauts see Earth from space for the first time.            Retrieved from businessinsider.com

Chakrabarty, Dipesh. (2009), ‘The Climate of History: Four Theses’, Critical Inquiry, 35.

Fowkes, Maja and Reuben. “Planetary.” In ​Posthuman Glossary. ​London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018.

Fuller, R.B. (1969). Operating manual for spaceship earth. Southern Illinois University Press: Carbondale

Oreskes, Naomi. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?” in Climate           Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren, ed. Joseph F. C. Dimento and Pamela               Doughman Cambridge, Mass., 2007

Schroeder, Cheyenne Derksen. (n.d.). Earthrising: Cosmosphere hosts astronauts, crew in Apollo 8 50th anniversary   event. Retrieved from hutchnews.com

[planetaryawarenessproject]

Withnessing

By Janne de Kock

In the society of the spectacle, any social relationship between people is mediated by images.[1] The spectacle ensures that the only way people are united is by their separation of one another.[2] In a world that focuses on the individual, people live past each other and are commonly naive of their relatedness to the unknown neighbour. However, every being is born in collaboration with an other being: their mother. This fact is something that is generally forgotten but can serve as a valuable reminder, opening up a way for renewed engagement with neighbours and strangers. The concept of withnessing can help us here. The Australian artist Louise Boscacci explains withnessing as the sum of three parts: co-poiesis, witnessing and affect. The initial term, wit(h)nessing, is integral to the idea of co-poieses as proposed by the artist and feminist theorist Bracha Ettinger.[3] While human beings are commonly ignorant of their relationship with unknown others, the idea of co-poiesis (literal translation: creating together) explains the unconditional togetherness of (human) subjects. Starting in the whomb, every subject is being created and shaped by an other (their mother), while simultaneously creating and shaping that other (by making this woman a mother). Therefore, a notion of self cannot exist without a notion of other; this is not only so in the whomb, but continues after the being is born. Looking at the whomb as a metaphor for the co-creation of the subject, it becomes more accessible to imagine a connection between the self and the other; it becomes more accessible to be with others. Withnessing is the unconditional togetherness in creation. Apart from the emphasis on human interdependency (with-ness), Boscacci refers to the practice of witnessing as described by the scholar Kelly Oliver. Oliver explains it in a twofold manner: witnessing as observation, as being present and observing what happens, and witnessing as to bear witness, testifying to something that is invisible. According to Oliver, this double meaning is at the heart of subjectivity, at the core of being a subject.[4]  Withnessing is a twofold way of perceiving. Incorporating both Ettinger's notion of co-poiesis, Oliver's notion of witnessing and adding the idea of ‘affect,’ Boscacci defines withnessing as ‘a waymaker that enriches and extends the work of witnessing by embracing the teachings of affect [...] in our humanimal encounters.’[5] Boscacci classifies affect not as emotion states, but as energies (generated by any encounter) resonating within us and manifesting themselves as thoughts and actions of the being containing these energies.[6] The notion of affect implies that withnessing ensures a long lasting relationship between two encountered subjects. Withnessing is ever ongoing. The concept of withnessing envisions both an affective and an affected role for each subject. Looking through the concept, Boscacci sees any physical meeting between subjects as an encounter-exchange: we are witnessing (both observing and bearing testimony to an event), we are doing this unconditionally together with others, and we are affected by it while affecting others.[7] The meeting of beings is in this light both an encounter – two beings come together – and an exchange – two beings both give to and receive from the other.[8] The meeting is always both, even though it does not seem as if things are being exchanged. Withnessing and the Planet-wary During the Planet-wary curation, we are providing our audience with an opportunity for the becoming together of earthlings (as Boscacci refers to all living species on planet Earth).[9] Our unawareness tells us implicitly that we are independent; we are not affective, and we are not affected. The problem in the spectacle mode of spectatorship is a general disengagement. The concept of withnessing lays bare the connections that are always already there. It provides us with a helpful attitude we can take on to get closer to an embodiment of the planetary perspective. It insinuates a thorough engagement with our surroundings and a more conscious way of perceiving ourselves in relation to the other: as intrinsically connected. Withnessing is not about transforming, but about realizing what was there all along. The realization of the omnipresent connection within species is an essential first step towards taking up a planetary perspective. Species are then seen as parts of a bigger whole. Planet-wary subjects do not have to transform themselves to become Planet-wary, they instead have to become aware that it is already them.

[1] Bishop, “Viewers as Producers,” 12.

[2] Debord, “De voltooide scheiding,” 21.

[3] Brackets intended. Ettinger, “Weaving a Woman Artist,” 8.

[4] Oliver, Witnessing: Beyond Recognition, 16.

[5] Boscacci, “Wit(h)nessing,” 343.

[6] Boscacci, “Wit(h)nessing,” 346

[7] Boscacci, “Wit(h)nessing,” 344. The act of ‘witnessing’ differs from ‘observing’ in an implied remembering of the witnessed/observed event.

[8] Boscacci, “Wit(h)nessing,” 343.

[9] Boscacci, “Wit(h)nessing,” 346.

Bibliography/further reading

Bishop, Claire. “Introduction: Viewers as Producers.” In Participation, edited by Claire Bishop, 10-17. London: Whitechapel, 2006.

Boscacci, Louise. ‘Wit(h)nessing.” Environmental Humanities 10, no.1 (May 2018), 343-347.

Butler Judith. Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex”. New York: Routledge, Debord, Guy. “De voltooide scheiding.” In De Spektakelmaatschappij & Commentaar op de spektakelmaatschappij. Translated by Rokus Hofstede, Jaap Kloosterman and René van de Kraats. Utrecht: Uitgeverij IJzer, 2015, 15-28.

Ettinger, Bracha L. “Co-poeïses.” Framework X Ephemera 5 (2005), 703-713.

Ettinger, Bracha L. “Weaving a Woman Artist With-in the Matrixial Encounter-Event.” Theory, Culture & Society 21, no. 1 (2004), 69-93.

Jones, Brandon. ‘Mattering.’ In: Posthuman Glossary, eds. Rosi Braidotti and Maria Hlavajova, 244-247. London, New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2018.

Oliver, Kelly. Witnessing: Beyond Recognition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001.

[planetaryawarenessproject]

The Climate Paradox

By Sarah Houterman (6244505)

        Climate change is becoming an increasing part of everyday news-stories. Natural disasters have increased and the Earth is getting warmer due to carbon admissions. As more scientific proof is published to reaffirm that anthropogenic interference with the climate is the cause of these climate changes, less is done on a policy level to reduce them. Even though citizens of wealthy western countries agree that climate change is a problem it is perceived as less important than other issues such as education or gun control. This discrepancy is called the psychological climate paradox.[1]

        Some explanations have been proposed to explain this climate paradox. These include: climate change is perceived as distant in both time and space, the lack of a global treaty and political action, the quest for economic growth, the financial crisis, the complexity of the problem leading to numbing and helplessness, cultural filters, cognitive dissonance, limited individual responsibility, active counter-campaign and denial as a fear-avoidance strategy.[2]

        The response to the public’s climate change “numbness” by scientists and policymakers is to offer more information which works counterproductive. This approach has failed but there is much less knowledge about different means of approaching climate communication. Thus far, climate debates were mostly informed by physical sciences that define the climate problem and social science that evaluate climate policy.[3]

        When graphics and factual information fail to convey messages about climate change we turn to literature and art. Timothy Clark talks about these new kinds of ways to respond to the Anthropocene in his book: Ecocriticism on the Edge.[4] He says that even though these new artistic efforts are striking, they are faced with the problem that environmental destruction cannot be seen or localised. It resists representation in the ways that poetry, narrative and drama are accustomed to. He points out that in order to gage the reader’s attention, climate change related issues have to be tied in with narratives about humans. These stories focus more on the human’s live and struggles than on the humans impact on the environment. The reader only cares about the environment when it plays a significant role in the human character development.[5]

        As Clark puts it; humans can care about the environment as long as it is tied to experiences they are familiar with. Multiple studies have shown that people want to combat climate change when it is a risk to their health. A successful example; the ozone hole. In the 1970 and 80’s there was a hole in the Earth’s ozone layer. The message to the public was that due to this hole more ultraviolet light could reach the Earth's surface and cause skin cancer amongst other health problems. By reducing CFC gasses in the Earth’s atmosphere this environmental problem could be reversed over time. All people had to do is stop using products like hair spray that had CFC in them. The choice they were faced with, putting it bluntly, was either to use a different hair product or get skin cancer.[6]

        Unfortunately, climate change is too complex and caused by many different reasons and intertwining interest to pose such a simple ultimatum. Keeping Clarks statement in mind, the first step to approaching the climate paradox is to formulate a familiar narrative to humans. Creating stories and experiences that humans can recognise themselves in and make the effects of climate change tangible would help them engage with the issue in a meaningful way. Art can help create this narrative and help dissolve or significantly alter the effect of the climate paradox.  

        Through such art experiences, humans can become more aware of their effect on our Earth’s climate and in the process gain a planetary perspective. The climate paradox asks for a new way of looking and relating to the planet. By channeling planetary awareness into the debate about climate change humans will be able to gain a planetary vision of the world.

References               

[1] Norgaard KM. Living in denial: climate change, emotions, and everyday life.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2011.

[2] Gifford R. The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climatechange mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol 2011;66(4):290–302.

[3] Stoknes, Per E. "Rethinking climate communications and the “psychological climate paradox”." Energy Research & Social Science 1 (2014), 161-170. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2014.03.007.

[4] Clark, Timothy. Ecocriticism on the Edge : The Anthropocene As a Threshold Concept, Bloomsbury Publishing, PLC, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uunl/detail.action?docID=2056898.

[5] Idem.

[6] Sanjayan, M., and Vox. "Why Humans Are So Bad at Thinking About Climate Change." YouTube. April 19, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkZ7BJQupVA&list=PLJ8cMiYb3G5fP5oq01TBp9fgh70vDDSMe.