 |
 |
2nd call for DOPE 2016 - we are still accepting abstracts until November 11. Apologies for cross-posting Call for papers: 6th Annual Dimensions of Political Ecology Conference, University of Kentucky, February 26 – 27, 2016 Session title: Exploring ‘dynamic sustainabilities’ in the Anthropocene Session organizers: Mathew Bukhi Mabele (Geography, University of Zurich) Jacob Weger (Anthropology, University of Georgia) Discussant: Amber Huff (Institute of Development Studies & the ESRC STEPS Centre, University of Sussex) Since 2000, when Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer first proposed the term “Anthropocene” for the current era in which humankind has become the dominant force behind global environmental change, altering the functioning of the entire Earth System, lively and heated academic debates have persisted about this new age of humans. Some focus on interrogating the exact starting dates of the Anthropocene (Lewis and Maslin 2015; Ruddiman 2013), or criticizing the narrative’s basic premise about the fossil fuel economy’s contribution to the alteration of the Earth System, arguing that “fossil fuel was not created nor is it upheld by humankind in general” (Malm and Hornborg 2014: 62). Others question the accuracy and political-ethical implications of the name “Anthropocene,” suggesting that alternatives such as “Capitalocene,” “Plantationocene,” or “Cthulucene” might be more apt (Haraway 2015). Still others stress the need for interdisciplinarity in researching the Anthropocene, arguing for more proactive engagements by critical environmental social sciences and humanities with Anthropocene science and discourse, which tend to be dominated by natural science perspectives (Brown 2015; Castree et al. 2014; Palsson et al. 2013). Frank Biermann goes further, arguing that a “governance perspective” is sorely needed in Anthropocene science and discourse. According to Biermann, the Anthropocene must be understood as “as a global political phenomenon” (2014: 57), which alters interdependency relations within and between human societies at multiple scales and creates extreme variations in wellbeing, thus posing novel political challenges. Such developments call for critical theories/perspectives that engage a political economy approach in interrogating sustainability challenges, transformations, and pathways. Political economy matters in sustainability research because “it integrates a structural and relational understanding of economy and politics in historical context, with an understanding of the influences of the diverse axes of social difference and power relations” (Schmitz and Scoones 2015: 38). This approach is necessary if the Anthropocene is to change the way we understand political systems from local to global scales (Biermann 2014). One promising perspective is that of dynamic sustainabilities (Leach et al. 2010). Dynamic sustainabilities offers an approach that embraces the importance of dynamics, diversity, nonlinearity, uncertainty, complexities, and power relations in sustainable development pathways (ibid). Sustainability challenges such as climate change, human health problems, food insecurity, land grabbing, water insecurity, deforestation, land degradation, etc. hold diverse meanings for different people and institutions, in different contexts and at different scales. It is therefore imperative to seriously consider the ways that people understand and value complex socio-ecological systems, and to “recognize the essentially plural and political nature of our quest for pathways to sustainability” (ibid: 2). Moreover, given the devastating impacts of poverty and inequality across the world, it is essential to give “priority to people living in poverty and marginalisation, seeking sustainabilities that meet their goals for better lives and livelihoods and greater social justice” (ibid: 171). Inspired by such an approach, this session calls for papers that bring attention to the complex, multi-scalar, political, and justice implications of sustainability challenges in the Anthropocene. It builds on research exploring how in a complex, dynamic, and power-laden world, people can think, conceptualize, and develop pathways to sustainability that embrace environmental integrity and social justice (Leach et al. 2010). Possible topics may include, but are not limited to: • Policy framings, processes and spaces that recognize plurality, diversity, and the political nature of pathways to sustainability • Alternative framings and pathways to sustainability in forestry, wildlife conservation, agriculture and food systems, climate change, water resources management, human health and wellbeing, etc. • Politics and power relations in the production, application, and circulation of sustainability knowledges and pathways • Losers and winners in the context of current [hegemonic] and alternative [potential] pathways to sustainability • Innovative ways [methodologies, epistemologies, ontologies] of thinking and doing science to foster “dynamic sustainabilities” in the Anthropocene • Innovative ways of engaging science with governance to support adaptive and deliberative pathways to sustainability. References: Biermann, F. 2014. the Anthropocene: A governance perspective. The Anthropocene Review 1(1): 57–61. Brown, K. 2015. Global environmental change II: Planetary boundaries – A safe operating space for human geographers? Progress in Human Geography Castree, N., et al. 2014. Changing the intellectual climate. Nature Climate Change 4: 763–768. Crutzen, P.J. 2002. Geology of mankind. Nature 415: 23. Crutzen, P.J. and E.F. Stoermer. 2000. The Anthropocene. IGBP Newsletter 41(17): 17–18. Haraway, D. 2015. Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin. Environmental Humanities 6: 159–165. Leach, M., I. Scoones and A. Stirling. 2010. Dynamic sustainabilities: Technology, environment, social justice. Milton Park, London: Earthscan Publications. Lewis, S.L. and M.A. Maslin. 2015. Defining the Anthropocene. Nature 519: 171–180. Malm, A. and A. Hornborg. 2014. The geology of mankind? A critique of the Anthropocene narrative. The Anthropocene Review 1(1): 62–69. Palsson, G., et al. 2013. Reconceptualizing the ‘Anthropos’ in the Anthropocene: Integrating the social sciences and humanities in global environmental change research. Environmental Science & Policy 28: 3–13. Ruddiman, W.F. 2013. The Anthropocene. Annual Review of Earth Planetary Sciences. 41: 45–68. Schmitz, H. and I. Scoones. 2015. Accelerating sustainability: Why political economy matters. IDS Evidence Report No. 152. For those who would like to participate in this session, please send an abstract of no more than 300 words to Mathew Mabele ([log in to unmask]) and Jacob Weger ([log in to unmask]) no later than November 11th 2015. Successful applicants will be notified by November 13th 2015, and will be expected to register and submit their abstracts by November 20th 2015 at this link https://www.as.uky.edu/dope-2016-registration All the best, -- Mathew Bukhi Mabele Doctorate Student Human Geography,University of Zurich Email: [log in to unmask] http://www.geo.uzh.ch/en/units/hgg/about-us/staff/mathew-bukhi-mabele/