Part I
FROM DUALISM TO DIALECTICS:
CAPITALISM AS WORLD-ECOLOGY
CHAPTER 1
From Object to Oikeios:
Environment-Making in
the Capitalist World-Ecology
Words are like empty balloons, inviting us to fill them up with associations. As they fill they begin to gain intrinsic force and at last to shape our perceptions and expectations. So with the word âecologyââŠ
(Worster, 1994)
For nearly half a century, Green Thought has wrestled with a double question. Is nature exogenous to the essential relations of human history, for the most part playing roles as tap (raw materials) and sink (pollution)? Or is nature a web of life encompassing all of human activity, comprising taps and sinks, but also much beyond? Is nature, in other words, a set of objects that humans act upon, or is it a web of life that human relations develop through?
The vast Green literatures that have emerged since the 1970sâpolitical ecology, environmental history and environmental sociology, ecological economics, systems ecology, and many moreâhave developed by answering âyesâ (in one form or another) to both questions. On the one hand, most scholars agree that humanity is indeed part of nature. They reject the Cartesian dualism that puts Society (without natures) in one box and Nature (without humans) in another. On the other hand, the conceptual vocabularies and analytical frameworks that govern our empirical investigations remain firmly entrenched in the interaction of these two basic, impenetrable unitsâNature and Society. This âdouble yesâ poses a real puzzle: How do we translate a materialist, dialectical, and holistic philosophy of humans-in-nature into workable (and working) conceptual vocabularies and analytical frameworks?
The arithmetic of Nature plus Society has been the bread and butter of environmental studies since the 1970s. The arithmetic bears distinctive linguistic inflections across the historical social sciences, and across the Two Cultures. Earth-system scientists talk about âcoupled human-natural systemsâ;1 Marxist ecologists speak of the ânature-society dialecticâ;2 cultural studies highlights hybrids, assemblages, and networks.3 Establishing this arithmetic as a legitimate domain of scholarly activity has been Green Thoughtâs greatest contribution. The environmental humanities and social sciences brought to light the other, previously forgotten or marginalized, side of the Cartesian binary: the world of environmental impacts. No small accomplishment, this. âThe environmentâ is now firmly established as a legitimate and relevant object of analysis.
About this signal accomplishment, I would make two observations. First, the work of bringing nature as factor into the study of global change is now largely complete. It is increasingly difficult to address core issues in social theory and social change without some reference to environmental change. There remains considerable unevenness, across the historical social sciences, in how environmentally oriented research is valorized (or not). But the core project of Green Thought, from the time it gathered steam in the 1970s, has been successful: the legitimacy and relevance of environmental research is no longer in question. This project was always infused with a dialectical sensibility.4 But its operationalization turned on an affirmation of the first question we posed at the outsetâenvironment as objectârather than nature as the web of life. This prioritizationâcould it have been otherwise?âresulted in the disjuncture we encounter today: between humanity-in-nature (as philosophical proposition) and humanity and nature (as analytical procedure).This disjuncture lies at the core of the impasse in environmental studies today: an impasse characterized by a flood of empirical research and an unwillingness to move beyond environment as object. Nature with a capital âNâ has been prized over the web of life. This impasse may be understood in terms of a generalized reluctance to refigure modernity as producer and product of the web of life.
My second observation therefore turns on the exhaustion of the Cartesian binary to deepen our understanding of capitalism, historically and in the present crisis. Today, that binary obscures, more than it illuminates, humanityâs place in the web of life. âNature plus Societyâ appears especially unsuited to dealing with todayâs proliferating crisesânot least those linked to climate change and financializationâand also with the origins and development of these crisis tendencies over the broad sweep of modern world history.
Is it now necessary to move beyond the environment as object? Can the project of writing environmental histories of social processes adequately capture the manifold ways in which these processes are not only producers of environments, but also products of them? The idea that social organization carries with it environmental consequences has taken us far, but it is unclear just how much farther Green Arithmetic can take us.
But if Green Arithmetic cannot get us to where we need to go today, what can?
My response begins with a simple proposal. Needed, and I think implied by an important layer of Green Thought, is a concept that moves from the interaction of independent unitsâNature and Societyâto the dialectics of humans in the web of life. Such a concept would focus our attention on the concrete dialectics of the messily bundled, interpenetrating, and interdependent relations of human and extra-human natures. Needed, in other words, is a concept that allows a proliferating vocabulary of humanity-in-nature, rather than one premised on humanity and nature.
THE OIKEIOS: INTERACTION, DIALECTICS, AND THE PROBLEM OF AGENCY
I propose that we begin with the oikeios.
Oikeios is a way of naming the creative, historical, and dialectical relation between, and also always within, human and extra-human natures. The oikeios is shorthand: for oikeios topos, or âfavorable place,â a term coined by the Greek philosopher-botanist Theophrastus. For Theophrastus, the oikeios topos indicated âthe relationship between a plant species and the environment.â5 Properly speaking, oikeios is an adjective. But in the long journey towards a vocabulary that transcends the Two Cultures (the physical and human sciences), I hope the reader might excuse a few liberties with the language.
Neologisms come a dime a dozen in Green Thought. We neednât not look far for concepts aiming to fuse or combine the relations of human and extra-human nature.6 And yet, after decades of vigorous Green theorizing and analysis, we still lack an approach that puts the oikeios at the center. Such a perspective would situate the creative and generative relation of species and environment as the ontological pivotâand methodological premiseâof historical change. This reorientation opens up the question of natureâas matrix rather than resource or enabling conditionâfor historical analysis; it allows the reconstruction of humanityâs great movements, from warfare to literature to scientific-technological revolutions, as if nature matters to the whole of the historical process, not merely as its context, or its unsavory consequences.
This is the intended contribution of the oikeios. Naming the relation through which humans (and other species) create the conditions of lifeââdefinite modes of lifeâ in Marx and Engelsâ nicely-turned phrase7âimmediately directs our attention to the relations that activate definite configurations of acting units and acted-upon objects. The oikeios is a multi-layered dialectic, comprising flora and fauna, but also our planetâs manifold geological and biospheric configurations, cycles, and movements. Through the oikeios form and re-form the relations and conditions that create and destroy humanityâs mosaic of cooperation and conflict: what is typically called âsocialâ organization. Nature-as-oikeios is, then, not offered as an additional factor, to be placed alongside culture or society or economy. Nature, instead, becomes the matrix within which human activity unfolds, and the field upon which historical agency operates. From such a vantage point, the problems of food, water, oil (and so much more!) become relational problems first, and object problems second; through the relations of specific civilizations, food, water, and oil become real historical actors.
From the perspective of the oikeios, civilizations (another shorthand) do not âinteractâ with nature as resource (or as garbage can); they develop through nature-as-matrix. Climate change is a good example. Civilizations develop by internalizing extant climate realities, favorable and unfavorable. âClimateâ is not a historical agent as such; it is no more a historical agent, in itself, than empires or classes abstracted from the web of life. Historical agency is irreducibly bundled in and through the oikeios. To lean on Marx, a species (or biospheric process) that does not have its agency outside itself does not exist.8 Agency, in others words, is not a property of Nature and (or) Societyânot even of humanityâs spectacular forms of sociality. Agency is, rather, an emergent property of definite configurations of human activity with the rest of life. And vice versa.
Agency is clearly a key question for left ecology. Here I take agency as the capacity to induce historical change (to produce ruptures), or to reproduce extant historical arrangements (to reproduce equilibrium). It is a crude but useful distinction. To say that nature is a âhistorical protagonistâ9 sounds quite attractive. But what does it really mean? Are we simply adding nature to a long list of historical actors? Or does recognition of nature-as-oikeios imply a fundamental rethinking of agency itself? We can read many arguments that seek to elucidate natureâs agency.10 It is not, however, clear how natureâs agencyâwhether conceived in Cartesian or dialectical termsâmight clarify the making of the modern world. Does nature, say climate, âhaveâ agency in the same way that classes or empires âmakeâ history?
Yes and no. Part of the problem is the temptation to assign agency to both sides of the Cartesian binary. Climate, weeds, disease, in such assignments, âhaveâ agency in a manner analogous to classes, capital, and empire. There has been a certain arithmetic logic to these assignments: if humans have agency, can we not say the same thing about extra-human natures? That sounds right, but does not, I think, adequately capture how agency unfolds. For relations of class, capital, and empire are already bundled with extra-human natures; they are configurations of human and extra-human natures. From this it follows that agency is a relational property of specific bundles of human and extra-human nature. Class power (and not only the agency of classes) derives and unfolds through specific configurations of power and (re)production in the web of life.
If nature is indeed a historical protagonist, its agency can be comprehended adequately only by stepping out of the Cartesian binary. The issue is emphatically not one of the agency of Nature and the agency of Humans. These are unthinkable without each other. Rather, the issue is how human and extra-human natures get bundled. Yes, diseases make history, but only as epidemiological vectors bound to commerce and empire. This is, too often, left out of arguments of natureâs agency: the capacity to make history turns on specific configurations of human and extra-human actors. Human agency is always within, and dialectically bound to, nature as a wholeâwhich is to say, human agency is not purely human at all. It is bundled with the rest of nature.
The world-ecological alternative takes these bundles of human/extra-human activity as its starting point. Civilizations are big, expressive examples of this dialectical bundling. From the large-scale and long-run patterns of human-led environment-making, we can discern historical facts from the practical infinitude of basic facts. Climate change, in this scheme of things, becomes a vector of planetary change woven into the very fabric of civilizational power and production (class, empire, agriculture, etc.). Hardly a recent phenomenon, this socio-ecological fabric stretches back millennia.11 This is the spirit, if not always the letter, of much climate historiography.12 When climate changes, so too change the structures of power and production. However, this is not because climate interacts with civilizational structures, causing problems at some point in these structuresâ otherwise independent lives. We might do better to reorient our vision, to see climate conditions as present at, and implicated in, the birth of these structures. Civilizations are unthinkable in the absence of climateâitself (yet another) shorthand for a diversity of atmospheric processes that co-produce relations of power and production. As such, climate is but one bundle of determinationsânot determinismsâthat push, pull, and transform the rich totalities of historical change. When climate has changed dramatically, the outcomes have often been dramatic and epochal. Consider, for example, the eclipse of Rome af...