• About Us
    • About the platform
    • Editorial Collective
  • Essays
    • Short Essays
    • Longer Reads
    • Reviews
    • Interviews
  • Series
    • Italian Political Ecologies
    • Reimagining, remembering and reclaiming water
    • Political Ecologies of the Far Right
    • Green inequalities in the city
    • Authoritarianism, populism and political ecology
    • Ecology after Capitalism
    • Ecomodernist socialism and comunist futurism
    • Political Ecology for Civil Society
    • World Press Photography Awards
    • Authoritarianism, populism and political ecology
    • Green inequalities in the city
    • Political Ecologies of Pesticides
    • Political Ecologies of the Far Right
    • Political Ecology for Civil Society
    • Ecomodernist socialism and comunist futurism
    • World Press Photography Awards
    • Ecology after Capitalism
    • Reimagining, remembering and reclaiming water
  • Resources
  • Events and Calls
  • Art & multimedia
  • Contribute
  • About Us
    • About the platform
    • Editorial Collective
  • Essays
    • Short Essays
    • Longer Reads
    • Reviews
    • Interviews
  • Series
    • Italian Political Ecologies
    • Reimagining, remembering and reclaiming water
    • Political Ecologies of the Far Right
    • Green inequalities in the city
    • Authoritarianism, populism and political ecology
    • Ecology after Capitalism
    • Ecomodernist socialism and comunist futurism
    • Political Ecology for Civil Society
    • World Press Photography Awards
    • Authoritarianism, populism and political ecology
    • Green inequalities in the city
    • Political Ecologies of Pesticides
    • Political Ecologies of the Far Right
    • Political Ecology for Civil Society
    • Ecomodernist socialism and comunist futurism
    • World Press Photography Awards
    • Ecology after Capitalism
    • Reimagining, remembering and reclaiming water
  • Resources
  • Events and Calls
  • Art & multimedia
  • Contribute
  • About Us
    • About the platform
    • Editorial Collective
  • Essays
    • Short Essays
    • Longer Reads
    • Reviews
    • Interviews
  • Series
    • Italian Political Ecologies
    • Reimagining, remembering and reclaiming water
    • Political Ecologies of the Far Right
    • Green inequalities in the city
    • Authoritarianism, populism and political ecology
    • Ecology after Capitalism
    • Ecomodernist socialism and comunist futurism
    • Political Ecology for Civil Society
    • World Press Photography Awards
    • Authoritarianism, populism and political ecology
    • Green inequalities in the city
    • Political Ecologies of Pesticides
    • Political Ecologies of the Far Right
    • Political Ecology for Civil Society
    • Ecomodernist socialism and comunist futurism
    • World Press Photography Awards
    • Ecology after Capitalism
    • Reimagining, remembering and reclaiming water
  • Resources
  • Events and Calls
  • Art & multimedia
  • Contribute
A strange mirror in the Amazon frontier
May 5, 2015
Mike Edwards: “How a class struggle over land and rent is damaging the UK”
May 13, 2015

Political ecology gone wrong

Published by Undisciplined Environments on May 7, 2015

Degrowth sign on Dunsmuir Viaduct, Vancouver (Canada). Source: ecocollectivism.wordpress.com

 By Giorgos Kallis*

Against pro-nuclear ‘ecomodernism’, we should reaffirm the fundamental incompatibility between ecologism and modernization.

The ecomodernist manifesto by the ‘post-environmentalist’ think-tank the Breakthrough Institute starts with premises familiar to political ecologists. Earth has become a human planet. There is no wild nature out there. We are part of nature and we constantly transform it. What landscapes we produce, what we conserve and what not, is a matter of choice. Yet most political ecologists, even the most ‘modernist’ among them, would feel uneasy (or so I hope) with the resulting eco-modernist agenda: nuclear power, genetically modified agriculture and climate geo-engineering—and all this in the name of, well, preserving ‘wilderness’…

How did we come to this point: a pro-nuclear political ecology?

The philosophical premises of the manifesto can be partly traced to the work of Bruno Latour, a supporter of ‘post-environmentalism’. For Latour, there is not—and there should not be—any separation between humans and nature. We have never been truly modern, Latour argues, in so far as existing modernity has sought to liberate humans from nature, and ignore its effects to it. To become truly modern, we have to take final responsibility of our products and their effects: we should control our technological ‘Frankensteins’, rather than shy away from producing them.

Slavoj Zizek, in arguing that ‘nature does not exist’, strikes a similar tone: ‘we are within technology… and we should remain strongly within it’. For Zizek, like Latour, there is no going back to an un-alienated relationship with nature; we should double up our efforts and become in control of our alienation. Zizek’s communist politics are worlds apart from the green, somewhat statist, capitalism of post-environmentalists. But I am afraid that, as far as our metabolic relationship to the non-human world is concerned, the result is the same, independent of whether the control of the means of producing this metabolism is to be private, state or communal.

Claiming that ‘there is nothing unnatural about nuclear power plants’ (paraphrasing David Harvey’s dictum about New York city) we risk reproducing the logic of the Soviet regime, where environmental problems did not exist, in so far as what was being produced was by the people and for the people. A stance on ‘ecology’ is necessary.

Including by the eco-modernizers, whose manifesto without an ‘eco’ becomes a pure call for modernization, advocating nuclear power for the sake of nuclear power. To justify the ‘eco’ in the title, the manifesto performs theoretical acrobatics, arguing that somehow a more intense use of technology will liberate space and resources for preserving wilderness. This is not only factually wrong. It is also inconsistent with the overall premise of the manifesto that there is no wild nature out there independent of us.

Contra Latour, the manifesto continues to treat nature as a means to an end (in that case using this nature more intensively to save that other, wild nature). And it assumes that somehow magically the resource extraction and transformations we conduct ‘here’ will not affect nature ‘out there’. In effect, the manifesto is what Latour criticizes as modernism 1.0; that is, a modernism still premised on the idea of separating ourselves from the non-human world.

Paradoxically, Latour’s own work can come to our rescue from the eco-modernizers. After all, he is the guy who wrote: ‘to modernize or to ecologize – that’s the question’. Indeed, unlike the eco-modernists, Latour argues that the ‘challenge demands more of us than simply embracing technology and innovation. It requires exchanging the modernist notion of modernity for what I have called a “compositionist” [note: what when younger he called ‘ecologist’] one that sees the process of human development as neither liberation from Nature nor as a fall from it, but rather as a process of becoming ever-more attached to, and intimate with, a panoply of nonhuman natures’.

Degrowth sign on Dunsmuir Viaduct, Vancouver (Canada). Source: ecocollectivism.wordpress.com

Degrowth sign on Dunsmuir Viaduct, Vancouver (Canada). Source: ecocollectivism.wordpress.com

And here is the mistake (dare I say in the knowledge that they will never read me) of Latour or Zizek. Recognizing our alienation from nature, and the power to contribute to the production of new socio-natures, does not logically lead to the conclusion that more ‘control’ or more and bigger technology is what we should do.

There are multiple ways in which we can become ‘ever-more attached to … nonhuman natures’. And there are many ways (technologies) and associated socionatures we can produce. We can choose a world of bicycles or spacecrafts and we can choose a world powered by DIY-windmills or by nuclear plants. Each suggests a different type of connection and relation with the non-human world. There is nothing to suggest that we connect more to a river by damming it and using it to produce electricity, than by walking along its shores or talking to it.

The ecologist movement has always been about a different type of connection, both among humans, and between humans and nonhumans. It has advocated smaller scale, and more direct connections, what Ivan Illich called ‘convivial’ relations: technologies that can be controlled by their users, and not by others on their behalf. The ecologist movement was always against nuclear power, not only because of its indisputable and terrible environmental risks and effects, but because it didn’t fit with its vision of the good and just life.

Contra Zizek, the hypothesis for radical ecologists is, as Illich put it, that ‘socialism will come on a bicycle’: large-scale technological systems create a society divided into experts and users. It is only a short pass for the former to become the bureaucrats or the bosses who control and appropriate the surplus of the system. A society powered by nuclear energy cannot be a society of equals or of mutual aid.

The ecologists’ call for limits to growth has mistakenly been thought of as a call for a harmonious co-existence with nature, one of leaving ‘nature’ alone (I am not denying that many ecologists argue for limits on these grounds, but I believe they are wrong). On the contrary, as we have argued elsewhere, the basis for limits should be different: fully aware of our capacity to keep pursuing what can be pursued, the choice is ‘not to’.

We ecologists do not want to produce radioactive or genetically modified Frankensteins. This ‘not to’ is an affirmative choice for the world we want to produce, a world where we live a simpler life, in common, a world of connection rather than disconnection, approaching rather than distancing, coupling rather than decoupling. A world where we control the controllers. This is an ecological vision.

The choice has always been, and still is, the same. To modernize or to ecologize? That is the question.

A longer version of this post has been published on degrowth.de.

*Giorgos Kallis is an ICREA professor of Ecological Economics at the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Autonomous University of Barcelona, and a Leverhulme visiting professor at SOAS, London. He is co-editor of the book ‘Degrowth: A vocabulary for a new era’ (Routledge 2014)

Share
Undisciplined Environments
Undisciplined Environments

Related posts

March 21, 2023

Under-ground ore: street intervention in the face of socio-environmental devastation in the Quintero-Puchuncaví sacrifice zone


Read more
March 7, 2023

South-South Circles of Poison? Malaysia’s role in (re)creating uneven geographies


Read more
January 10, 2023

Biodiversity breakthrough or time to stop global environmental meetings altogether?


Read more

17 Comments

  1. simonbatterbury says:
    May 7, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    Indeed.
    The Breakthrough Institute seems to have a geoenginering agenda in particular, and quite what prominent political ecologists have been doing working over there recently (not you!) I do not know.
    As a political ecologist, I have never really much liked (or, even, understood, as a rather more practical academic) what Latour had to say about socionatures. His approach was something that upset the academic norms of human-environment studies in the 1990s of course (by introducing the idea of networks, destroying divisions, and suggesting technological futures that should include mastery of humanity’s prodigal innovation).
    But 20 years on, anthropogenic impacts have worsened, suggesting effort needs to be redoubled to address the worst effects of quite obvious HUMAN impacts brought about by consumption, affluence, greed, and corporate control – and we know what those impacts are pretty well.
    So, contra Latour, I argue humans and nature are very different given the agency of the former that outweights the power of an earthquake to transform the planet, although where where one draws the line in terms of sentient beings, and whether they have separate identities, has occupied philosophers for centuries. Human-environment impacts are traceable, often bad, and usually mitigated by less technology, not more. (in general; the specifics are a bit different, as science advances)
    Illich was right too about bicycles, something I research a lot. https://bikeworkshopsresearch.wordpress.com/ – appropriate technology that we can guide. vive la vélonomie!

    Reply
  2. simonbatterbury says:
    May 7, 2015 at 4:57 pm

    Indeed.
    The Breakthrough Institute seems to have a geoengineering agenda in particular, and quite what prominent political ecologists have been doing working over there recently (not you!) I do not know.
    As a political ecologist, I have never really much liked (or, even, understood, as a rather more practical academic) what Latour had to say about socionatures. His approach was something that upset the academic norms of human-environment studies in the 1990s of course (by introducing the idea of networks, destroying divisions, and suggesting technological futures that should include mastery of humanity’s prodigal innovation).
    But 20 years on, anthropogenic impacts have worsened, suggesting effort needs to be redoubled to address the worst effects of quite obvious HUMAN impacts brought about by consumption, affluence, greed, and corporate control – and we know what those impacts are pretty well.
    So, contra Latour, I argue humans and nature are very different given the agency of the former that outweights the power of an earthquake to transform the planet, although where where one draws the line in terms of sentient beings, and whether they have separate identities, has occupied philosophers for centuries. Human-environment impacts are traceable, often bad, and usually mitigated by less technology, not more. (in general; the specifics are a bit different, as science advances)
    Illich was right too about bicycles, something I research. https://bikeworkshopsresearch.wordpress.com/ – appropriate technology that we can guide. vive la vélonomie!

    Reply
  3. Betsy Taylor says:
    May 7, 2015 at 8:01 pm

    terrific piece!

    Reply
  4. Love your symptoms: A sympathetic diagnosis of the Ecomodernist Manifesto | ENTITLE blog says:
    June 19, 2015 at 4:22 pm

    […] to “live a simpler life, in common, [in] a world of connection rather than disconnection” (in Giorgos Kallis’ words), sits at the heart of better worlds. To “Degrow,” means shrinking production and consumption. […]

    Reply
  5. Laudato Si: Signalling towards Degrowth? | Ecocide Alert says:
    July 2, 2015 at 4:17 pm

    […] is because the way it weaves together social and natural ecology around a substantive vision of the Good life does so while recognizing the possibility of such unity only within a practice that is guided by […]

    Reply
  6. AgroEcoDoc says:
    July 31, 2015 at 7:43 pm

    Reblogged this on AgroEcoPeople.

    Reply
  7. Decolonizing nature, the academy, and Europe: An interview with Zoe Todd | ENTITLE blog says:
    October 1, 2015 at 2:00 pm

    […] of nuclear power plants and GMOs to kick us past our environmental crisis. Many anthropologists and political ecologists disagree, arguing that we need to turn to other peoples who do not see nature and culture as […]

    Reply
  8. Top ENTITLE blog posts of 2015 | ENTITLE blog says:
    January 5, 2016 at 10:01 am

    […] 2. Political ecology gone wrong, by Giorgos Kallis. […]

    Reply
  9. Ecomodernismo versus ecología política | Ecología Política says:
    January 11, 2016 at 12:16 pm

    […] el 7 de mayo de 2015 en el blog de ENTITLE, con el título “Political Ecology Gone Wrong”: http://entitleblog.org/2015/05/07/political-ecology-gone-wrong/, y en castellano el 26 de mayo de 2015 en el Eldiario.es con el título “¿Un ecologismo […]

    Reply
  10. ¿Un nuevo ecopragmatismo? / Decrecimiento – Semanario PREGUNTAS says:
    February 20, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    […] el 7 de mayo de 2015 en el blog de ENTITLE, con el título “Political Ecology Gone Wrong”: http://entitleblog.org/2015/05/07/political-ecology-gone-wrong/, y en castellano el 26 de mayo de 2015 en el Eldiario.es con el título “¿Un ecologismo […]

    Reply
  11. Ecomodernismo versus ecología política – Ketzalkoatl, el periódico original says:
    May 13, 2016 at 6:20 pm

    […] el 7 de mayo de 2015 en el blog de ENTITLE, con el título “Political Ecology Gone Wrong”: http://entitleblog.org/2015/05/07/political-ecology-gone-wrong/, y en castellano el 26 de mayo de 2015 en el Eldiario.es con el título “¿Un ecologismo […]

    Reply
  12. Trashopolis! Storytelling, waste research and glocal conflicts – ENTITLE blog – a collaborative writing project on Political Ecology says:
    May 17, 2018 at 2:33 pm

    […] era, where the same old “humans” that are now in control will produce “good” natures. Yes! Eco-modernists please tell us more about sustainable nuclear energy, geoengineering and genetic modifications that […]

    Reply
  13. ENTITLE blog: 2018 so far and what’s in store – ENTITLE blog – a collaborative writing project on Political Ecology says:
    August 9, 2018 at 5:11 pm

    […] Political ecology gone wrong, by Giorgos Kallis […]

    Reply
  14. Nucleocrats Don’t Sleep – Undisciplined Environments says:
    March 31, 2021 at 3:00 pm

    […] of technofixes in a world which would be split into culture and nature. Political ecologist Giorgos Kallis disagreed, arguing with Latour and Žižek for the inseparability of human society and nature. He […]

    Reply
  15. Platforming to oblivion: How academic institutions foster merchants of doubt - Resilience says:
    February 10, 2022 at 2:42 pm

    […] and a silver tongue, Lomborg excels in his careful dance between outright denialism and neoliberal ecomodernism. In fact, he has repeatedly weaponised this ambiguity in debates, as an instance of enraged […]

    Reply
  16. Colonial Ecologies of the Half Earth - Resilience says:
    April 6, 2022 at 1:19 pm

    […] Half Earth is therefore a movement birthed and managed by a western scientific technocracy akin to ecomodernism. It envisions vast swathes of inert land and bodies managed by rational actors for the good of the […]

    Reply
  17. Colonial Ecologies of the Half Earth – Undisciplined Environments says:
    October 4, 2022 at 12:23 pm

    […] Half Earth is therefore a movement birthed and managed by a western scientific technocracy akin to ecomodernism. It envisions vast swathes of inert land and bodies managed by rational actors for the good of the […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search this site

✕

Subscribe to our Newsfeed

We keep your data private and share your data only with third parties that make this service possible. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Tags

Agriculture Alternatives Anthropocene Art Brazil Capitalism Cities Climate change Climate crisis Climate justice Colonialism, Post-colonialism & Decolonization Commoning Commons Conflicts Conservation & Biodiversity COVID-19 Culture Decolonial Political Ecologies Degrowth Democracy Development Disaster Energy Environmental Change Environmental History Environmental Justice Environmental movements Extractivism Food Forests Green inequalities Indigenous Peoples Land Methodologies Mining & Extractivism Movements & Resistance Neoliberalism Post-colonialism Post-colonialism & Decolonization Social Movements & Resistance Urban Violence Waste Water water governance

Visit WEGO

wegoint.org
This website is co-funded by WEGO

Popular Posts

  • Indigenous Science 297 views
  • South-South Circles of Poison? Malaysia’s role in (re)creating uneven geographies 140 views
  • What does virtual water conceal? 130 views
  • A comprehensive political ecology reading list 97 views
  • Biodiversity breakthrough or time to stop global environmental meetings altogether? 89 views
  • The trouble with rewilding… 86 views

Recent Comments

  • February 9, 2023

    About refrigerators – Thoughts in words commented on About refrigerators

  • February 5, 2023

    Luciano medinero morales commented on Fruta saludable, cuerpos enfermos

  • January 29, 2023

    User19 commented on Green is the new brown: ecology in the metapolitics of the far right

  • January 26, 2023

    Book review: “Enlightenment and Ecology: The Legacy of Murray Bookchin in the 21st Century” – towardsautonomyblog commented on Social Ecology, Kurdistan, and the Origins of Freedom

  • January 25, 2023

    المدن المستدامة بعد COVID-19: هل المناطق الخضراء على غرار برشلونة هي الحل؟ - Corepaedia news commented on To Green Or Not To Green: Four stories of urban (in)justice in Barcelona

  • January 4, 2023

    Timo commented on Against the misrepresentation of climate activism in Lützerath aka the ZAD Rhineland

✕

Tags

Agriculture Alternatives Anthropocene Art Brazil Capitalism Cities Climate change Climate crisis Climate justice Colonialism, Post-colonialism & Decolonization Commoning Commons Conflicts Conservation & Biodiversity COVID-19 Culture Decolonial Political Ecologies Degrowth Democracy Development Disaster Energy Environmental Change Environmental History Environmental Justice Environmental movements Extractivism Food Forests Green inequalities Indigenous Peoples Land Methodologies Mining & Extractivism Movements & Resistance Neoliberalism Post-colonialism Post-colonialism & Decolonization Social Movements & Resistance Urban Violence Waste Water water governance

Follow us

facebook       twitter
E-Mail Us : undisciplinedenvironments@gmail.com

Contribute

If you want to contribute send us your text at undisciplinedenvironments@gmail.com
Find our posting guide here

About Us

We are a collective of scholars and activists oriented towards a common horizon of emancipatory social and ecological transformation. With this platform, we aim to animate a space to share, debate and critically reflect on research and activist experiences, observations, methodologies, news, events, publications, art, music and other themes and objects related to political ecology.
powered by andromedia
  • About Us
  • Essays
  • Series
  • Resources
  • Events and Calls
  • Art & multimedia
  • Contribute
go