Reply to Nisa’s post
Nisa, thank you for interesting and well written thoughts and comments. In your reflection, Moore’s historical-ecological method and how this methodology could (or could not) translate into historical practice seem to be your main focus. First I would like to begin with commenting on your initial statement, that the transcending of the nature/culture divide has stuck in your head during our program in global environmental history. I find this interesting since this is something I have also pondered a lot about myself. As you mentioned, this divide and the importance of overcoming it, has been emphasized repeatedly during our first semester, and I have been thinking about whether the constant emphasizing of the phenomena is continuing to reinforce it or actually changes it. It’s an ongoing discussion I guess. But have this mantra in some way opened up or changed your ‘constructive approach’ to human-nature assumptions since we began the program? Or has it stayed the same?
It might be my own somewhat difficulties to fully grasp some of Moore’s concepts and ideas, but for me it is a bit difficult to follow your argument on why you cannot see how practicing history can be to locate cumulative and cyclical moments in the capitalist world ecology. You seem to be missing an analysis of how historical practice is produced within Moore’s capitalist world-ecology, oikeios. This is a relevant critique and I think it would be very interesting to hear Moore’s answer to your objections.