Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

On critical hope and the anthropos of non-anthropocentric discourses. Some thoughts on archaeology in the Anthropocene

On critical hope and the anthropos of non-anthropocentric discourses. Some thoughts on... Abstract In this essay I scrutinize the non-anthropocentric discourses used by the social sciences and humanities narratives and critiques of the Anthropocene. Although not always predominant within the academic Anthropocene debate, such discursive strands remain politically and ethically inspiring and influential in that debate and for the public discourse concerning the epoch. I stress that these discourses inherit the hope for human progress that characterizes critical theory of the Frankfurt school, i.e. ‘critical hope’, a type of hope that renders the non-anthropocentric discourses self-contradictory. Even when they manage to escape the hold of critical hope, these discourses, I argue, suffer from ethical and political failings due to their inherent lack of focus on human–human relations and largely ahistorical nature. I conclude the essay by advocating an Anthropocene archaeology that remains critical of and learns from the ethical and political shortcomings of non-anthropocentric perspectives and making a related call for a slow archaeology of the Anthropocene. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archaeological Dialogues Cambridge University Press

On critical hope and the anthropos of non-anthropocentric discourses. Some thoughts on archaeology in the Anthropocene

Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 28 (2): 8 – Dec 1, 2021

On critical hope and the anthropos of non-anthropocentric discourses. Some thoughts on archaeology in the Anthropocene

Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 28 (2): 8 – Dec 1, 2021

Abstract

Abstract In this essay I scrutinize the non-anthropocentric discourses used by the social sciences and humanities narratives and critiques of the Anthropocene. Although not always predominant within the academic Anthropocene debate, such discursive strands remain politically and ethically inspiring and influential in that debate and for the public discourse concerning the epoch. I stress that these discourses inherit the hope for human progress that characterizes critical theory of the Frankfurt school, i.e. ‘critical hope’, a type of hope that renders the non-anthropocentric discourses self-contradictory. Even when they manage to escape the hold of critical hope, these discourses, I argue, suffer from ethical and political failings due to their inherent lack of focus on human–human relations and largely ahistorical nature. I conclude the essay by advocating an Anthropocene archaeology that remains critical of and learns from the ethical and political shortcomings of non-anthropocentric perspectives and making a related call for a slow archaeology of the Anthropocene.

Loading next page...
 
/lp/cambridge-university-press/on-critical-hope-and-the-anthropos-of-non-anthropocentric-discourses-8RhpmJl3j9
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
ISSN
1478-2294
eISSN
1380-2038
DOI
10.1017/S1380203821000192
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract In this essay I scrutinize the non-anthropocentric discourses used by the social sciences and humanities narratives and critiques of the Anthropocene. Although not always predominant within the academic Anthropocene debate, such discursive strands remain politically and ethically inspiring and influential in that debate and for the public discourse concerning the epoch. I stress that these discourses inherit the hope for human progress that characterizes critical theory of the Frankfurt school, i.e. ‘critical hope’, a type of hope that renders the non-anthropocentric discourses self-contradictory. Even when they manage to escape the hold of critical hope, these discourses, I argue, suffer from ethical and political failings due to their inherent lack of focus on human–human relations and largely ahistorical nature. I conclude the essay by advocating an Anthropocene archaeology that remains critical of and learns from the ethical and political shortcomings of non-anthropocentric perspectives and making a related call for a slow archaeology of the Anthropocene.

Journal

Archaeological DialoguesCambridge University Press

Published: Dec 1, 2021

Keywords: Critical theory; Anthropocene archaeology; Anthropocene ethics; object-oriented ontology; New Materialism; post-humanism

References