What is the Anthropocene?

What is Ecofeminism?

What is Globalization?

What is Capitalism?

What is Structural Inequality?

What is Fordism?

What is the Circular Economy? | Definition & Key Principles

To explain what a circular economy is, it’s useful to begin by defining its opposite: the linear economy. A linear economy follows the take-make-dispose model, and is one way of describing how we currently produce and consume goods. Raw materials are extracted, used to manufacture products, and then disposed of in oceans, landfills, and so on. In a circular economy, on the other hand, 

Mastering the Circular Economy

… closed loops and cycles are introduced into the value chain to organize the return flows of products and materials, for the purpose of recycling, remanufacturing, reuse or other value retention strategies… (2021) 

These strategies are intended to drastically mitigate waste and, ultimately, restore the natural environment. Proponents of circular economic models view it as instrumental in the fight against climate change in this Anthropocene era, a key aspect of building a more sustainable future that decouples production from the extraction of earth’s natural resources. 

Circular economy practices and principles include but are not limited to the cradle-to-cradle philosophy, eco-design, product leasing, biomimicry, and the use of digital technology for more efficient natural resource management. In this study guide we will explore each of these, and then look at some tangible examples and initiatives where these approaches are currently being implemented. Finally, we will conclude with an overview of critiques of the circular economic model and some reflections on the future outlook and potential of the circular economy. 

Circular economies take much of their inspiration from nature, as natural ecologies are composed of plants, animals, and other organisms whose life cycles are deeply intertwined with one another. In fact, this emphasis on ecological systems is perhaps the core underlying approach that subtends all other practices and principles associated with the circular economy. 

Moreover, in terms of sustainability thinking, David Cheshire points out that nature makes a remarkable array of biodiversity possible while predominantly using a relatively limited set of the periodic table of elements, 

The Handbook to Building a Circular Economy

Nature uses structure and form to create stiffness, flexibility and even colour from its limited palette of materials. Structural elements such as bones and tree trunks use complex forms to create light, efficient structures from microstructures that start at the molecular level. A butterfly’s wing is coloured not by pigmentation but by a microstructure that refracts light. (2021)

In turn, through the use of resourcefulness and technological ingenuity, proponents of circular economic models argue that we can also learn to be more creative and efficient with how we utilize resources and redirect the byproducts produced from industrial processes.

Relatedly, another one of the central philosophies of the circular economy is thinking in terms of “cradle to cradle.” This comes as an alternative to “cradle-to-grave” thinking, as one might in the linear economy where we buy something new and then throw it away once we’re finished using it. Rather, a circular economic model is largely defined by rejecting the concept of waste, and instead viewing all byproducts as inputs for other production processes. As Eric Corey Freed puts it,

Circular Economy For Dummies

Waste doesn’t exist within the natural world; there, every output of a system acts as an input for another. Leaf litter isn’t litter at all, but a source of food for insects and eventually a food source for the tree to grow leaves again next year. The carbon dioxide emitted through animal respiration is harvested by vegetation and replaced with the oxygen required to future support animal respiration. Material lifecycles within nature are circular, not linear. Every output of one systems serves as an input for another. (2021)

In other words, every byproduct serves as healthy food for something else. On a household level, cradle-to-cradle thinking could look like saving food scraps for composting to fertilize fruit and vegetable plants in a garden. At the business level, it might look like using packaging that has been made out of 100% recycled materials. 

At its simplest, eco-design in a circular economy refers to designing production processes to minimize environmental impact to the utmost degree. A circular economy is very much predicated on intentionally structuring the entire value chain to achieve maximum environmental efficiency, as a key way of putting the aforementioned philosophies into practice. As Pietro De Giovanni and Pierroberto Folgiero explain, 

Strategies for the Circular Economy

The main strategies for eco-design are as follows: Using materials with low environmental impact, choosing clean production processes, avoiding hazardous and toxic materials, maximizing the efficiency of the energy used for production and for the product in use, and designing for waste management and recycling. (2023)

The point of eco-design, therefore, is not only to take into account how waste products can be used in other ways, but to generate less waste in the first place. From the supply side, rather than planned obsolescence that has become common in many electronics, manufacturers could design their products to be repaired and refurbished. And while eco-design often focuses on the large-scale systems of actors and firms involved in the commodity production process, its principles can also be applied to individual consumer products themselves. For instance, investing in reusable to-go containers rather than using disposable coffee cups would be a way that consumers can support eco-design. 

Another innovative practice associated with circular economies involves shifting how we think about purchasing, consuming, and owning products. Rather than taking a more linear approach of buying something new, using it, and disposing of it when we are finished, many proponents advocate for product leasing. Continuing with De Giovanni and Folgiero’s explanation of circular economic principles, 

Product leasing is a service model in which a user pays for the access and the usage of a product during a certain period. Manufacturers typically maintain ownership of the product and are responsible for delivery, maintenance, and all take-back activities. Leasing allows the circular economy system to mitigate uncertainty on quantity, quality, and timing of returns. (Strategies for the Circular Economy, 2023)

In this sense, a person might buy an appliance such as a refrigerator and use it for a set amount of time and then return it to the supplier who can then refurbish it to sell to someone else, or disassemble and reuse the materials. Similarly, product leasing might take the form of tool libraries where people can rent things like power drills and then return them when they’re done. Thus, rather than viewing companies as producers of commodities, in a circular economy, they’d be more like service providers.

Finally, a circular economy utilizes the internet of things (IoT) to increase the overall efficiency of production processes and to reduce environmental impacts. As Catherine Weetman asserts,

A Circular Economy Handbook

The Internet of Things (IoT) or ‘intelligent assets’ have scope to extend the lifetimes of asset and product, reduce their in-use consumption, and help with their effective recovery at end-of-use. This connectivity between devices and physical infrastructure is referred to as the Internet of Things or the ‘industrial internet’ ... IoT has great potential to reduce energy use and improve time- and resource-efficiency across many sectors. (2020)

Even within an individual home, smart devices can significantly reduce energy consumption by monitoring heating and air-conditioning systems and automatically shutting off once a certain temperature is reached. Yet, the utility of the IoT is manifold on an industrial level in building and facilities management, in agriculture, and even in monitoring liquid cooling systems which are essential to maintaining large internet servers. Thus, the IoT can be an essential part of monitoring and mitigating excess energy expenditures that improve overall resource management and energy efficiency.

Perhaps not surprisingly, in much of the literature on the circular economy the private sector is regarded as the main arena where these transitions ought to take place.Circular economy proponents emphasize that designing the entire supply chain to drastically reduce or even eliminate waste products by redirecting them to other industries will make the largest environmental impact. In fact, according to a report by European Investment Bank cited in The Circular Economy,

The Circular Economy

One of the key findings in the related trailblazing report entitled “Re-configure: The Circular Economy – a Powerful Force for Climate Mitigation” [85], is that more CE initiatives in key economic sectors could cut EU industrial emissions by more than half by 2050. … Globally, the reductions could be 3.6 billion tons per year in the same period. Industry accounts for 24% of global CO2 emissions, which stood at 37 billion tons in 2017. (2019)

Specifically, scholars and analysts point to industries dealing with manufacturing materials like metals, plastics, and cement, as well as to sectors such as agriculture, energy, and textiles as key areas where the circular economy could usher in more environmental sustainability. For example, the popular clothing chain, H&M, has already adopted circular economy principles such as building circular systems in their supply chains that aid in the reuse, repair, and recycling of textiles rather than throwing them away.

Beyond the positive environmental impact, circular economy proponents have also made a business case for its adoption. They argue that new jobs can be created from the process of turning byproducts into valuable inputs for other sectors and industries. Take, for example, another report cited in A Circular Economy Handbook,

The World Economic Forum believes a ‘shift to circular economic activity could help address the global job gap of 600 million’, along with many other benefits across a range of market sectors.4 Accenture estimates that ‘shifting to the circular economy could release US$4.5 trillion in new economic potential by 2030’ (Catherine Weetman, 2020)

Others claim that applying a cradle-to-cradle philosophy by finding ways to utilize “waste” products can save businesses money in the long run, as it is expensive to extract natural resources such as metals like copper or lithium from the ground. Still, these reports remain speculative as it remains to be seen which costs and risks might be involved with adopting a circular economic approach in many sectors.

The public sector is also a leading actor in driving the adoption of the circular economy, as they can help mitigate some of the business risks associated with transitioning to the circular economic model and incentivize corporations to do so. Government initiatives to support a circular economy can be found around the world, including in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. That said the European Union is currently where the most comprehensive efforts are being made to facilitate the transition towards a circular economy. For example, as Ed Weenk and  Rozanne Henzen observe in Mastering the Circular Economy, 

In 2020, the European Union presented their Green Deal and Circular Economy Action Plan: ‘Climate change and environmental degradation are an existential threat to Europe and the world. To overcome these challenges, Europe needs a new growth strategy that will transform the Union into a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy, where: 

1.) there are no net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050; 

2.) economic growth is decoupled from resource use; 

3.) no person and no place is left behind. 

The European Green Deal is our plan to make the EU’s economy sustainable. We can do this by turning climate and environmental challenges into opportunities, and making the transition just and inclusive for all’ (EU, 2019, 2020). Points 1 and 2 in particular have direct connections to circularity and are likely to be a driving force behind circular initiatives. (2021) 

In line with these goals, the European Investment Bank has invested EUR 3.4 billion into 118 circular economy projects. One of the most well known is the WEE (Waste of Electrical Equipment) directive which facilitates collection schemes where consumers can return electronics to be recycled for free. Moreover, such efforts are also supported by other organizations such as Ellen MacArthur Foundation, United Nations Environment Programme, and The World Economic Forum, which set guidelines and seek to influence policies that align with the circular economic model.

Beyond the role of large corporations and political actors, the transition towards a circular economy has major social and cultural dimensions as well. For one, it necessitates a shift in attitudes and norms around consumption and waste. This dimension of the circular economy often gets less attention than the role of the private sector and governments do. Yet, researchers like Viktor Pál, 

Social and Cultural Aspects of the Circular Economy

emphasise the role of actors that sit outside of the formal organisations of the market economy. [He] argue[s] that these play a crucial role in local food transformation (e.g., grassroots innovations) ... but are often absent in the mainstream CE policy frame (e.g., EU policies, major circular city strategies, corporate plans, etc.). (2022) 

While the supply side of products and systems that enable better practices around these matters are fundamental, buying things to last or leasing them, repairing them when they are broken, and taking the time and effort to recycle and share goods are also instrumental to a healthy circular economy. Here it is also important to note that many traditional livelihoods and indigenous cultures, particularly in the global South, already practice circular economy principles and these could offer sources of guidance in the transition towards a more sustainable future.

One of the main criticisms of the circular economy is that it places too much centrality on the market as a vector for driving environmentally sustainable change. These critics point to the fact that large corporations are themselves among the largest polluters worldwide because short term economic growth is essential to staying afloat within market economies. This potentially places businesses and corporations at odds with taking business risks to invest in circular economic principles and practices on a scale that could effectively mitigate climate change. Put simply, decision makers in some of the highest polluting industries, such as oil and gas, have too much invested in keeping things the way they are to be the pioneers of a more sustainable economic model.

As an alternative to centering the market as is the case in the circular economic model, proponents of degrowth problematize the structural and economic systems themselves as fundamentally at issue in assessing environmental degradation. As explained in The Future is Degrowth,

The Future is Degrowth: A Guide to a World Beyond Capitalism

Degrowth starts from the fact – demonstrated by an increasing number of studies – that further economic growth in industrialized countries is unsustainable. Even if that growth is ‘green’ or ‘inclusive’, or even as part of a transformative progressive agenda that massively invests in renewable energies and the sustainability transition, industrialized countries cannot reduce their environmental impact (emissions, material throughput, etc.) fast and sufficiently enough while, at the same time, growing their economies. (2022) 

Rather than simply attempting to reform the economy, proponents of degrowth advocate for broader structural change to curtail the worst of capitalism. These shifts might include the socialization of public goods like energy, natural resources, and housing in an effort to use resources not for the benefit of corporations, but for the good of the people and the planet.

Other critics of the circular economic model argue that there are actually environmental concerns around what it means to harness and reuse industrial waste products. Many experts argue that doing so will never be 100% possible and what’s more, that recycling waste products in many cases is itself very resource intensive. As Paul Micklethwaite points out, 

Beyond Recycling

Shipping waste around the world in huge quantities makes little sense environmentally due to the transportation impacts. We are told to recycle for the sake of the environment. Globally distributed recycling diminishes the value of our recycling efforts. (2021)

Plus, not all byproducts are truly recyclable such as toxic and contaminated materials, chemical compounds that are not easily separated into their constituent parts for reuse, or items that are simply too expensive to recycle to be financially viable. Moreover, this often applies to the most environmentally harmful waste products. Thus, it is argued that some of the objectives of the circular economy are overly optimistic in terms of their actual impacts in mitigating environmental harm.

Finally, some critics of the circular economy such as Micklethwaite argue that it lacks a clear analysis of power by taking a top down approach that leaves the experiences of regular people out of the conversation. While much of the literature on the circular economy is set on appealing to the interests of governments and private sector firms, there is little emphasis placed on what a just transition to this economic model would look like. Specifically, those who make a social justice critique of the circular economy point to things like working conditions in many of the industries that are likely to be involved in making such a transition a reality. Continuing with Micklethwaite, 

Electrical and electronic waste streams are growing rapidly worldwide, meaning more people are forced to work in awful conditions on our behalf elsewhere in the world due to our consumption (World Economic Forum, 2019). If it is economically viable for waste materials to be recovered, they will be, somewhere in the world. As with the exploitative production of cheap clothing, human costs are acknowledged but generally overlooked in the global recycling industry. (2021)

Those who work in industries emphasized as being essential to bringing about a circular economic model such as textiles, mining, manufacturing, and agriculture are often among the world’s most marginalized — often feminized, poor, and outsourced to the global South. Therefore, social justice critics contend that facilitating a transition towards a circular economy ought to involve creating more just and equitable labor conditions rather than exacerbating them. For more information on this, Ecofeminism is a good starting point for understanding the push for social justice in climate policy.

The circular economic model presents an alternative paradigm for the production and consumption of goods that is geared towards a more environmentally sustainable future. Through adopting alternative principles and practices such as biomimicry, eco-design and product leasing, its proponents argue that market economies can be transformed from a force that harms the environment to one that promotes healthy ecologies at the global scale. Research suggests that the circular economic model has the potential to drastically reduce waste, offset natural resource extraction, and create new jobs.

Its critics, however, argue that this picture may be overly optimistic. They contend that looking to market actors and elites to drive these shifts is dubious because these are the same forces that have been the biggest drivers of pollution, and that the circular economic model ignores social justice issues such as labor conditions. Moreover, some environmental experts also point out that it is not possible to transform waste products into useful forms for other industrial processes, and when doing so is possible, is itself resource intensive. 

While these critiques ought to be confronted and addressed, the circular economy and its constituent innovations still shed light on an alternative way forward toward a green transition. They offer a practical blueprint for staving off some of the worst impacts of climate change. Through the cooperation between the private sector, public policy initiatives, and the general public, the circular economy certainly provides one valuable piece of the puzzle in creating a more sustainable future.

Designing for the Circular Economy (2018) by Martin Charter

The Case for Degrowth (2020) by Giorgos Kallis, Susan Paulson, Giacomo D'Alisa, and Federico Demaria

Circular Economy for the Management of Operations (2020) by Anil Kumar, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, and Syed Abdul Rehman Khan

Just Transitions: Social Justice in the Shift Towards a Low-Carbon World (2019) by Edouard Morena et al. 

Cheshire, D. (2021) The Handbook to Building a Circular Economy. RIBA Publishing. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2880114/the-handbook-to-building-a-circular-economy-pdf 

Freed, E.F. (2021) Circular Economy For Dummies. For Dummies. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2514694/circular-economy-for-dummies-pdf 

Giovanni, P.D. & Folgiero, P. (2023) Strategies for the Circular Economy. Routledge. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3822726/strategies-for-the-circular-economy-circular-districts-and-networks-pdf

Micklethwaite, P. (2021) Beyond Recycling. Routledge. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2367631/beyond-recycling-pdf 

Pál, V. (2022) Social and Cultural Aspects of the Circular Economy. Routledge. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3478857/social-and-cultural-aspects-of-the-circular-economy-toward-solidarity-and-inclusivity-pdf 

Schmelzer, M., Vetter, A., & Vansintjan, A. (2022) The Future is Degrowth. Verso. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3534800/the-future-is-degrowth-a-guide-to-a-world-beyond-capitalism-pdf 

Sillanpaa, M. & Ncibi, C. (2019) The Circular Economy. Academic Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1829496/the-circular-economy-case-studies-about-the-transition-from-the-linear-economy-pdf 

Weenk, E. & Henzen, R. (2021) Mastering the Circular Economy. Kogan Page. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2568733/mastering-the-circular-economy-a-practical-approach-to-the-circular-business-model-transformation-pdf 

Weetman, C. (2020) A Circular Economy Handbook. Kogan Page. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2037160/a-circular-economy-handbook-how-to-build-a-more-resilient-competitive-and-sustainable-business-pdf 

What is The Circular Economy?

What is Posthumanism?

What is AI Ethics?

What is Time-Space Compression?

What is Primitive Accumulation?

What is Marxism?

What is Political Ecology?

What is The Anthropocene? | Definitions, Analysis & Examples

The Anthropocene, literally translated, means “the age of the human”. It is a geological term coined by Paul Crutzen & Eugene Stormer in the year 2000, used to both describe and propose a new geological era – one which marks the end of the Holocene and the start of an altogether new age. This new geological era, the so-called Anthropocene, is one marked by human influence on Planet Earth. We might think of The Anthropocene as a geological means of describing climate change – not just is the Earth’s average temperature rapidly changing, but so too are the rocks beneath our feet.

If aliens landed on Planet Earth thousands of years from now to find a planet devoid of humans, a quick look into the rock fossil record would quickly assert to the damaging presence of the human – be that in the form of a baseline level of radioactivity in the Earth, an amorphous merging of plastics into the rock fossil record, or the unprecedented amount of cattle and livestock bones enmeshed in the ground. 

While originally a term used purely geologically, the Anthropocene concept has spread through the academic and public consciousness rapidly, and as such is often used to more generally describe the environmental crises of the contemporary moment. As Timothy Clark helpfully points out in Ecocriticism on the Edge: The Anthropocene as Threshold Concept,

Ecocriticism on the Edge

the term has rapidly become adopted in the humanities in a sense beyond the strictly geological. Its force is mainly as a loose, shorthand term for all the new contexts and demands – cultural, ethical, aesthetic, philosophical and political – of environmental issues that are truly planetary in scale, notably climate change, ocean acidification, effects of overpopulation, deforestation, soil erosion, overfishing and the general and accelerating degradation of ecosystems. (2010)

There is much debate over when The Anthropocene started, as well as what started it. When dealing with geological time periods, assigning a precise date is rather tricky. Asking when this era started, is a bit like asking when climate change started. Was it at the birth of the steam engine? Or perhaps the colonisation of America? Does the birth of humans creating fire announce the path to our current predicament? Or, could it be at the birth of agriculture; the beginning of the pervasively accepted ideology that land is there to be neatly allotted and plundered to our own ends? 

What is interesting here is not necessarily answering these questions, but in registering the rich ambiguities that lie between them. Jason W. Moore, in his book Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital, asks, ‘Are we really living in the Anthropocene…or are we living in the Capitalocene, the historical era shaped by relations privileging the endless accumulation of capital?’ (2015, 173). Moore here suggests that not only is The Anthropocene not definable by “one” static or immutable moment, but moreover that we’re perhaps not in The Anthropocene at all – instead, we are in the Capitalocene. Critics of the term, like Moore, feel that it over emphasises the power of the human whilst erasing a sense of human responsibility. What’s more the term perhaps doesn’t reflect on the roles of capitalism, colonialism, and racism along the path that led to The Anthropocene. For instance, are all humans equally culpable for climate change? A glance at the history books would tell us that men, particularly white European men, are significantly more to blame for the effects of climate change whilst socio-geo-economically being less likely to be impacted by it. As such, other means of describing and historicising this era have arisen as a means of righting these shortcomings.

Anthropocene, Cthulucene, or Anthropocenes?

There is not a widely accepted agreement on the concept or naming of The Anthropocene within the wider academic field; indeed, Moore is not alone in his suggestion of a new name for this era. Donna Haraway is another such writer who is sceptical of the term. Haraway, within Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Cthulucene, suggests the term ‘Cthulucene’ as a means of opposing the ‘exterminating forces’ of the Anthropocene and Capitalocene alike. She elaborates,

Staying with the Trouble

the scandals of times called the Anthropocene and the Capitalocene are the latest and most dangerous of these exterminating forces. Living-with and dying-with each other potently in the Chthulucene can be a fierce reply to the dictates of both Anthropos and Capital. (2016)

The Cthulu of the Cthulucene is used to describe ‘cthonic ones…beings of the earth, both ancient and up-to-the minute. I imagine chthonic ones as replete with tentacles, feelers, digits, cords, whiptails, spider legs, and very unruly hair’ (2016, 2). For Haraway, the climatic conditions of the 21st century announce a moment where it is imperative to think beyond the human. Describing this era as that “of the human”, to Haraway, is perhaps not the most useful way of forging forwards in response-ability with the non-human creatures we share the planet with. As such, Cthulucene is suggested over both Anthropocene and Capitalocene as a means of ratifying this oversight.

Through this constellation of opinions and opposing terminologies, Anthropocene, Capitalocene and Cthulucene, what emerges is not one fixed notion of The Anthropocene, but perhaps a variety of Anthropocenes. While it is important to be critical of the underpinnings and connotations of the term ‘Anthropocene’, it is also undeniable that the term itself has a heft, weight and a ubiquitous adoption beyond the world of academic study, which Haraway and Moore’s perhaps do not. 

In your own reading and writing on the subject, try to be critical and mindful of which type of Anthropocene you are describing. Please see our ‘Further Reading’ list at the end of this article for more suggestions aligned to the question of what the Anthropocene is, whose Anthropocene it is, and what that particular Anthropocene might imply ethically, historically and philosophically for your research and writing.

The Anthropocene concept proposes that we, humans, now occupy and influence “deep time”. Deep time is a term used to describe the timescales one would usually associate with geological periods. Where human history deals with days, weeks, months and years, geological history deals with much deeper and challenging scales. Millions of years exist as a blink of an eye in geological terms. In The Anthropocene, the distinction between human measures of history and geological measures of history start to collapse. Thus, in the Anthropocene, we begin to occupy deep time registers.

Historically human history and geological history have remained two distinctly separate fields of study. Indeed, what makes the concept of The Anthropocene so interesting as an academic field is that it breaks down such scholastic barriers. As Dipesh Chakrabarty argues in The Climate of History: Four Theses,  the clashing of these two types of historical scale causes a mixing of the seemingly ‘immiscible chronologies of capital and species history. This combination, however, stretches, in quite fundamental ways, the very idea of historical understanding’ (2009, 220).

What, then, are we to do with such timescales? How can we “think” deep time and act within deep scales of time? The very way in which we understand and navigate the world is shot through with this rather alarming conflation of human scales and deep scales of time. Mobile phones are an interesting example of this type of short/deep time slippage. Not only do they require ten times more precious Earth metals than a laptop or desktop computer, but the data centres fuelling them emit large doses of carbon into the Earth’s atmosphere. As such, a mobile phone has roots in the deep geological past whilst finding itself projected into a speculative atmospheric future. All the while they are utilised for short-term, humdrum activities in the fleetingly brief present moment. 

Timothy Morton’s work on Hyperobjects is interesting in relation to this deep time/human time imbrication. Morton coins the idea of ‘Hyperobjects’, suggesting they are objects that are,

massively distributed in time and space relative to humans. A hyperobject could be a black hole. A hyperobject could be the Lago Agrio oil field in Ecuador, or the Florida Everglades. A hyperobject could be the biosphere, or the Solar System’ (2013, 1). Global warming, and thus The Anthropocene, are great examples of hyperobjects, since they ‘involve profoundly different temporalities than the human-scale ones we are used to. (2013)

We are surrounded by examples of The Anthropocene in the day-to-day. These vary from the climactic (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions, ocean acidification, biodiversity decline, human population increase & deforestation) to the quotidian (e.g. strange weather, air travel, cattle farms & cloud data storage). Examples of The Anthropocene announce themselves both in startling headlines about climate change, but also in our day-to-day imbrication with such events; an unseasonably warm day is shot through with anxiety of the wider narrative of climate change which underpins it. In the context of these accumulating signifiers of The Anthropocene, it is interesting and instructive to explore how popular media might be both reflecting and reinforcing the unique characteristics of this era.


Science fiction films are particularly interesting in this regard. As a genre science fiction often mirrors the concerns and anxieties of the contemporary moment, per Susan Sontag’s arguments in The Imagination of Disaster. Following Sontag’s logic, as climate change has emerged as one of the biggest anxieties of the 21st century, contemporaneous science fiction films often contain Anthropocene-inflected imagery, thought and meaning.

One such example is Interstellar (Nolan, 2014). The film is set in a climate-impacted future wherein crop production has ground to a halt in a dust-bowl laden atmosphere. Humanity’s chances of survival are pinned on colonising other planets, and a band of scientists travel through a wormhole in efforts to find a suitable new home. The first planet they arrive on is particularly interesting in relation to the time-shapes of The Anthropocene. Before landing, the team discusses the temporal peculiarities of this planet – wherein every hour spent there equates to 7 years on Earth. This temporal lag poses all sorts of problems for the crew, and it leads them to note that they “need to think about time as a resource. Just like oxygen and food.” In the context of a dying planet, we do indeed need to think about time as a resource, like oxygen and food. If we do not act ecologically attentively with the little time we have left, it spells a doomsday narrative for humanity. 

In their active acknowledgement of divergent temporal pressures, we see Interstellar opening a dialogue into what happens when different senses of time converge, a central preoccupation of the narrative as it unfolds and a central preoccupation of the Anthropocene as we currently understand it. In doing so, Interstellar presents the ecological time-pressure of this Anthropocene-ic situation eloquently. ​​What’s more, when they do land on the planet, the temporal peculiarities of this uncharted territory are lent an environmental context. Mountainous waves lash down on the crew as they attempt to reach a beacon sent by their former colleagues, rendering the danger of this planet’s timeshape with a tangible environmental correlory. What’s more, to enhance the thematic preoccupation with time in the film and The Anthropocene at large, Hans Zimmer’s score enters the scene as a metronomic ticking. This ticking, initially, sounds like the dripping of water – potentially a clepsydra, or water clock. By reinforcing the visual and auditory connection between time and environmental motifs, Interstellar continually articulates its time-pressures around the environment itself. You can see this scene in the clip below:

In doing so we can see how the film is both influenced by the various collapsing time-pressures of The Anthropocene, at the same time as providing us with a platform for viewing, hearing and experiencing them; something that is perhaps harder to do in our day-to-day lives. By imbuing the collapsing time-shapes of this scene with environmental imagery and sound, Interstellar invites us to think about time from fresh environmental perspectives. As such, we might think about Interstellar as an example of ecocinema through the dialogue it opens between time, the environment and the speculative future. Through films like Interstellar we can see that cinema is a particularly useful medium for representing the various scalar discombobulations wrought through a rapidly warming climate. For more writing on cinema in relation to the environment and The Anthropocene, Robin L, Murray & Joseph K. Heumann’s Ecology and Popular Film, as well as Stephen Rust, Salma Monani & Sean Cubitt’s edited collection Ecocinema Theory & Practice are good places to start, as is the website Anthropocene Cinema.

Please see below for a suggested series of useful books for studying The Anthropocene, all available to Perlego subscribers.


The Climate of History in a Planetary Age by Dipesh Chakrabarty

Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime by Bruno Latour

The Shock of the Anthropocene: The Earth, History and Us by Christophe Bonneuil

Dark Ecology: For a Future of Coexistence by Timothy Morton

The Anthropocene and the Global Environmental Crisis: Rethinking modernity in a new epoch edited by Clive Hamilton, François Gemenne & Christophe Bonneuil

https://vimeo.com/97663518 – Donna Haraway’s Lecture “Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Chthulucene: Staying with the Trouble”, 2014

https://www.artandeducation.net/classroom/video/66320/dipesh-chakrabarty-the-anthropocene-project-an-opening – Bruno Latour’s Lecture “The Anthropocene and the Destruction of the Image of the Globe”, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x00LP0QfRTk – Elizabeth Kolbert’s “The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History”, 2014

https://www.science.org/content/article/are-we-middle-sixth-mass-extinction 

https://www.nature.com/articles/415023a – Paul J. Crutzen’s Geology of Mankind

Crutzen, P. & Stoermer, E., ‘The Anthropocene’ in IGBP [International Geossphere Biosphere Programme] Newsletter 41, 2000

Clark, T. (2015). Ecocriticism on the Edge (1st ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing.

Moore, J. (2015). Capitalism in the Web of Life. Verso.

Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press.

Chakrabarty, D. (2009). The Climate of History: Four Theses. Critical Inquiry, 35(2), 197–222. 

Morton, T. (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World (Posthumanities) (1st ed.). University Of Minnesota Press.

Sontag, S. The Imagination of Disaster in Commentary, vol. 40, 1965, pp. 42-48.

Murray, R., & Heumann, J. (2009). Ecology and Popular Film. State University of New York Press.

Cubitt, S., Monani, S., & Rust, S. (2012). Ecocinema Theory and Practice (1st ed.). Taylor and Francis.

Neilson, T. (2022). Anthropocene Cinema. https://www.anthropocene-cinema.com/

What is Intersectional Feminism?

What is Postfeminism?

Waves of Feminism - First to Fourth Wave Timeline

What is Radical Feminism?

What is Liberal Feminism?

What is Black Feminism?

What is Cultural Feminism?

What is Marxist Feminism?

Ecofeminism | Definition(s), Examples & Analysis

Ecofeminism, like most feminisms, is concerned with deconstructing, critiquing and eliminating systems of male-biased patriarchal oppression. More specifically, ecofeminism argues that these structures of oppression subordinate the natural world through the same mechanisms and logic as their subordination of women. Ecofeminism sees the erosion of wild places, declines in biodiversity, and rise in ecological disasters as inherently feminist concerns.

Indeed, as Greta Gaard demonstrates in her article Ecofeminism and Climate Change, ‘Gender inequalities mean that women and children are 14 times more likely to die in ecological disasters than men’ (23). Faced with such startling statistics, the need for a radical change in this dynamic is clear. It is precisely this shift which ecofeminism seeks to bring forth by interrogating these cascading layers of eco-gender inequality that pervade the industrial-capitalist world system.

The term ‘ecofeminism’ itself dates back to 1974, from Françoise d’Eaubonne, who coined the phrase “ecological feminisme” as a means of calling attention to women’s potential to bring about an eco-revolution. d’Eaubonne asserted that the marginalisation of women, people of colour and the poor were all tangled up in the systematic degradation of the natural environment & non-human world. It was not until the late 80s/early 90s however that ecofeminism truly began to gather steam and association as a discrete branch of feminism. Amongst the most oft-cited academic work on ecofeminism is Maria Mies & Vandana Shiva’s 1993 book Ecofeminism. Mies and Shiva’s book is concerned with clearly demarcating and structuring ecofeminist frameworks of thought:

Ecofeminism

"The impetus for writing came from analysing the causes which have led to the destructive tendencies that threaten life on earth. We became aware – quite independently – of what we call the capitalist patriarchal world system", they contend that, "this system emerged, is built upon and maintains itself through the colonization of women, of ‘foreign’ peoples and their lands; and of nature, which it is gradually destroying" (2014)

Under this capitalist patriarchal world system, Mies & Shiva argue, ‘nature is subordinated to man; woman to man; consumption to production; and the local to the global, and so on. Feminists have long criticized this dichotomy, particularly the structural division of man and nature, which is seen as analogous to that of man and woman’ (5). The subordination of nature by man is seen as concomitant, or at least similar, to the subordination of woman by man. In their critique of this binary system, and the layers of oppression inherent to it, Mies and Shiva announce ecofeminism as ‘a woman identified movement…’ and they ‘…see the devastation of the earth and her beings by the corporate warriors, and the threat of nuclear annihilation by the military warriors, as feminist concerns’ (14).

This is one of the core questions that pervades ecofeminist writing and criticism. For ecofeminism to be ecofeminist, it must adhere to the intrinsic principles of feminism itself. Karen J. Warren, in her edited collection Ecological Feminism, suggests that;

what makes ecological feminism feminist is its twofold commitment to the recognition and elimination of male-gender bias wherever and whenever it occurs, and to the development of practices, policies and theories which are not male-gender biased. (1994)

It is crucial here to note that this is about eliminating gender-bias, any ecofeminism which seems to lean on, or reinforce, binaries between masculine/feminine is in very real ways not feminist, and thus not ecofeminist. Please see the section below ‘Criticisms of ecofeminism’ for more detail on this.

Another aspect of ecofeminism which chimes neatly with the broader principles of feminist thought, particularly in the 21st century, is that it is intersectional almost by definition. Intersectional feminism acknowledges and addresses the tangled web of injustices that pervades society – paying attention to the ways in which concerns and injustices of gender are woven into concerns and injustices of class, race and geography. For more information on the notion of Intersectionality, we can recommend Mary Romero’s Introducing Intersectionality as well as our own study guide introduction to intersectional feminism. With regards to ecofeminism, in its inherent disposition towards interpreting the world from more than one angle (i.e. ecologically and feministically), it champions an intersectional framework for interpreting, critiquing and solving feminist concerns.

Just as ecofeminism needs to adhere to core feminist principles and praxis, it’s important to also delineate what makes ecofeminism ecological. Warren is again of use here, asserting that ‘what makes ecological feminism ecological is its understanding of and commitment to the importance of valuing and preserving ecosystems (whether understood as organisms, individuals, populations, communities and their interactions, or as nutrient flows among entities “in a biospherical net of relationships”). This includes the recognition of human beings as ecological beings (as “relational and ecological selves”), and of the necessity of an environmental dimension to any adequate feminism or feminist philosophy’ (2).

Ecological thought, in essence, proposes that human beings are but one form of life among many others. We are all interdependently enmeshed with one another, and as such humans should act according to the needs of other critters that call this planet home. Just as feminism seeks to flatten power hierarchies of gender, ecocriticism similarly proposes that all lifeforms, from lichen to llamas, are of equal importance. In this mirrored commitment to dethroning systems of subjugation, be they the patriarchy or petrocultural-capitalist society, ecology and feminism are in a sense natural bed fellows. Indeed, ecofeminism helps highlight that the patriarchy is an endemic component of petrocultural-capitalist society. For ecofeminism to be genuinely ecological and feminist it must attend to this twin commitment of ecological and feminist thought; highlighting and eliminating male-gender bias, whilst highlighting and eliminating human species bias in turn.

It is fair to say that ecofeminism has a somewhat chequered history, and, like many types of feminism, is hotly contested territory. Victoria Davion, in Is Ecofeminism Feminist?, pointedly argues that ‘at least some of the ideas coming from thinkers identifying themselves as ecofeminist are, in very important ways, not feminist. … These ideas glorify the feminine uncritically and thereby suggest that embracing a feminine perspective will help humans solve the ecological crisis. I argue that a truly feminist perspective cannot embrace either the feminine or the masculine uncritically, as a truly feminist perspective requires a critique of gender roles, and this critique must include masculinity and femininity’ (9).

Val Plumwood makes very similar arguments in Feminism and the Mastery of Nature;

Feminism and the Mastery of Nature

some ecofeminists have endorsed the association between women and nature without critically examining how the association is produced by exclusion. On the other hand, some equality feminists, equally uncritically, have endorsed women’s ascent from the sphere of nature into that of culture or reason without remarking the problematic, oppositional nature of a concept of reason defined by such exclusions. (2002)

Both Plumwood and Davion highlight the issues with certain forms of ecofeminism uncritically linking a sense of spiritual connection between women and nature, as well as uncritically endorsing an ascension or fissure of women from nature. Both of these dynamics fall back on gender binaries and stereotypes, and as such aren’t aligned with broader feminist principles of breaking down gender roles and stereotypes of this nature. As Davion neatly summarises, ‘for an analysis to be feminist, it is crucial…’ to ‘…acknowledge how “the feminine” is shaped by patriarchy and that it is not necessarily an independent category but may be a cluster of various traits emerging out of oppression’ (22). In short, for ecofeminism to be ecofeminist, it is crucial for it to not rest upon the binaries and systems of oppression it seeks to denounce.

In your own writing and research on ecofeminism, be attentive to these idiosyncracies – establishing binaries of masculine/feminine is rife with its own issues from a feminist perspective, and in that sense cannot truly be ecofeminist. Karen J. Warren’s aforementioned edited collection, Ecological Feminism, has plenty of articles which unpick and interrogate some of these intricacies, whilst forging ahead with productive new definitions and utilities for ecofeminist thought.

In a report from the UN, called Women, Gender Equality & Climate Change, it becomes bluntly apparent that on a dispersed global scale ‘women are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than men’ (1). As per Gaard’s previously cited quote, women and children are 14 times more likely to die in ecological disasters than men. Such facts and analysis work as a caustic reminder of the widespread injustices which percolate through climatic change. The sense of agency tethered to climate change in the public consciousness is often inattentive to the various types of inequality and culpability wrought through the industrial-capitalist world system. Indeed, Gaard suggests that ‘to date, climate change discourse has not accurately presented the gendered character of first-world planetary overconsumption’ (20). Ecofeminism is utilised by Gaard as a means of reviewing and drawing attention to these inequalities that are reinforced through the systems responsible for disastrous climatic change, in this era being referred to as The Anthropocene.

Gaard goes further to suggest that, ‘climate change may be described as white industrial-capitalist heteromale supremacy on steroids, boosted by widespread injustices of gender and race, sexuality and species’ (27). Such viewpoints neatly summarise the uses of ecofeminist praxis for progressing responsibly in the troubling times of The Anthropocene. Ecofeminism is a framework which helps untangle the roots and systems which have produced, and continue to perpetuate, climate change. Any route out of our current predicament must be one that addresses the spectrum of inequalities that underpin it – be that the gap between the rich and the poor, the white colonial histories/realities of “conquest”, or the dissonance between human and animal rights.

If you are researching or writing your own essay on ecofeminism, or considering ecology and feminism separately of one another, be sure to think on the enriching interdependencies that underpin this intersectional ethos. Ecofeminism is critical of industrial-capitalist-patriarchal systems, and seeks to unpick the binaries of gender, race, sexuality and species oppression that hold such systems in place. As we forge forwards in the 21st century, such ecological feminist thinking is paramount to addressing many of our most pressing concerns and enduring injustices. With this in mind, think carefully on the ways that an ecofeminist lens could enrich, illuminate, or even complicate the arguments you are making in your own work.

We’ve suggested some further reading and external resources below should you wish to explore some more books and information on this topic.

Further Ecofeminism reading & resources on Perlego

Please see below for a suggested series of useful books for studying Ecofeminism, all available to Perlego subscribers.

Ecofeminism, Second Edition: Feminist Intersections with Other Animals and the Earth

Developing Ecofeminist Theory: The Complexity of Difference

Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVbbov9Rfjg – Vandana Shiva lecture entitled ‘Ecofeminism and the decolonization of women, nature and the future’, San Telmo Museum 2020.

https://read.dukeupress.edu/environmental-humanities/article/3/1/93/8116/Val-Plumwood-s-Philosophical-Animism-Attentive – Val Plumwood’s Philosophical Animism: Attentive Interactions in the Sentient World, Deborah Rose Bird, 2013

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6FuKhjfvK8 – Heidi Hutner TED Talk entitled ‘Eco-Grief and Ecofeminism’, 2015.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/25/seeds-of-doubt – Seeds of Doubt, Michael Specter, 2014.

https://youtu.be/zbuLDAStSGk – ‘Part of the feast’: The life and work of Val Plumwood, by National Museum of Australia

Gaard, Greta. ‘Ecofeminism and climate change’ in Women’s Studies International Forum, vol. 49, 2015, pp. 20-33.

Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277539515000321

Shiva, Vandana, and Maria Mies. Ecofeminism. 2nd ed. Zed Books, 2014.

Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2014326/ecofeminism-pdf

Warren, Karren J. ‘Introduction’ in Ecological Feminism, ed. Karen J. Warren.
Routledge, 1994, pp. 1-8.

Available at: https://www.routledge.com/Ecological-Feminism/Warren/p/book/9780415072984

Davion, Victoria. ‘Is Ecofeminism Feminist?’ in Ecological Feminism, ed. Karen J. Warren. Routledge, 1994, pp. 8-28.

Romero, Mary. Introducing Intersectionality. 1st ed. Wiley, 2017.

Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1536454/introducing-intersectionality-pdf

Plumwood, Val. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. 1st ed. Taylor and Francis, 2002.

Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1621769/feminism-and-the-mastery-of-nature-pdf

UN. WomenWatch: Women, Gender Equality and Climate Change. N.D.

Available at: https://www.un.org/womenwatch/feature/climate_change/downloads/Women_and_Climate_Change_Factsheet.pdf

What is Political Economy?

Microeconomics vs Macroeconomics - What's the Difference?

What is Biopower & Biopolitics?

What is Poststructuralism?

What is World-Systems Theory?

What is Neocolonialism?

What is Postcolonialism?

What is Dialectical Materialism?

What is Political Ecology? | Definition, Examples & Analysis

Political ecology is a multidisciplinary approach to understanding environmental issues as fundamentally interrelated with political, economic, and social factors. It emerged in the 1970s and 1980s at the convergence of the fields of geology, anthropology, and history. Political ecology seeks to better analyze how climate change is socially produced, and how its impacts are unequally distributed. As opposed to conventional approaches to environmental science that did not take these points into account, scholars of political ecology

Making Political Ecology

[…] claimed that the ultimate causes of environmental degradation could be explained using the principles and concepts of political economy, including questions about wealth distribution, patterns of accumulation, the role of the state and power to control access to land and resources. Their central premise was that ecological problems are at their core social and political problems […] (Neumann, 2014)

Since its emergence, political ecology has become an increasingly mainstream lens through which we can understand how issues related to the natural environment intersect with other forms of social inequality.

Political ecologists take into account a holistic array of factors including power, wealth distribution, and access to natural resources when it comes to developing policy initiatives for environmental sustainability and conservation. This study guide delves further into these key points of analysis, which differentiate this discipline from other, more conventional ways of understanding the natural environment as independent from matters of social justice. We then provide an overview of perspectives, theoretical influences, and critiques that continue to shape discourses of political ecology.

Key points of analysis in political ecology

Political ecology recognizes that power and inequality are fundamental aspects not only of how the environment is shaped by human interests but also in terms of how different groups of people experience environmental change. Political ecologists view systems of oppression — such as colonialism, white supremacy, patriarchy, and capitalism — as deeply intertwined with questions of environmental change. As described in The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology, political ecologists, 

Ecology Articles

What is The Circular Economy?

What is the Anthropocene?

What is Ecofeminism?

What is Political Ecology?

What is Posthumanism?