Joachim Radkau – The Era of Ecology

Morag Ramsey- Radkau Reflection

Meeting with Radkau was a nice way to tie up this last year of Global Environmental History. We were introduced to Radkau’s Power and Nature last September in the course Modern Natures, and since then we have immersed ourselves in diverse and exciting aspects of this discipline, so it was interesting to come back to Radkau after a year of discovery. This response is a bit scattered, but I guess one can imagine it in three sections: 1) anthropocene, 2) time, 3) Maria’s question. (Everyone knows you can solve how scattered a paper is by just dividing the scattered thoughts into numerical groups.)

1) It was interesting to see how Radkau expressed his dissatisfaction with the term Anthropocene, as it tied in to how he cautions against simplifying relationships between humans and nature. In particular, Radkau seemed dissatisfied with how the Anthropocene suggests a dominating human agency over nature. He writes “an impartial environmental history does not recount how humanity has violated pure nature; rather, it recounts the processes of organization, self-organization, and decay in hybrid human-nature combinations.” (Radkau 2008, p.4) In general I quite like getting to hear different academics’ take on the Anthropocene. Libby Robin for example uses the idea to advance environmental work, while acknowledging the problems inherent in the concept when it comes to responsibility. In any event, I find the different emphasis scholars place on the Anthropocene a revealing peak into their philosophies.

2) Something that has been on my mind of late is time. (How we use it in writing, how we use it as a scale, how we access history chronologically, etc.) Last week there was a Historical Ecology conference where Paul Sinclair advocated for a paradigm shift when it comes to time. He referenced Einstein’s concept of time and how the past, present, and future are all of the same weight and significance. To me it is an intriguing and yet rather inaccessible idea. I cannot find a way to reimagine time. Today Radkau brought up time in reference to climate change. I believe he was commenting on the future, and how we are negotiating that outcome. He also wrote in his conclusion about Hegel, how “man is essentially here and now.” (429) I wonder if we were able to reimagine time if it would have a profound impact on our present actions or not. Part of the perceived issue when it comes to the environment is human’s short sightedness. I am not entirely sure how paradigm shifts of any kind are implemented, or how one can forecast the outcome. But it is intriguing nonetheless.

3) I enjoyed thinking over Maria’s questions, they were thought provoking and tied to current events. In particular Maria’s question on ‘act locally, think globally’ logged itself into my head. Perhaps as I have become preoccupied with time as a concept, and this seems like a re-imagination of space.
Maria described how Radkau says that acting locally and globally simultaneously is not possible, and that imagination is needed for inventive solutions and that it is a long process. Perhaps this is true. But I cannot easily imagine the damage of ‘acting locally’ while trying to be a responsible global citizen in the interim. If there is no alternative solution available, and it will require inventiveness and a long time to settle, what can individuals do in the meantime? Removing agency from individuals because there needs to be a different way to conceive of space and sharing of space seems problematic.

Reflection on Radkau (2013): The Age of Ecology

I enjoyed Radkau’s seminar and lecture, although I have to admit that there was nothing which was radically new – but this could have been because I studied political science in Germany and was already aware of the environmental movement and politics there. Both constitute Radkau’s main interest and referential point in his “global history” of environmentalism, a geographical bias he can be criticized for. As could be his rather traditional historical approach which seems to rely on (punish me historians if I am wrong here!) the vast search, collection and documentation of facts from which in the end conclusions can be drawn. There is no strong theory or red threat visible through Radkau’s writing, compared to an Alf Hornborg for example. But while the latter could be criticized for assuming overarching socio-economic structures which determine almost everything, Radkau offers at least glimpses of contingeny. As he writes in the very end of his book: “We know from history that there are moments when the inertia of existing structures breaks down and much that has seemed impossible is suddenly regarded as possible” (Radkau 2013: 431). This gives at least a little bit of hope, something in which Hornborg is still struggling I guess.

I would like to reflect on the “think globally, act locally” slogan which seems to reflect the ethos of the later form of environmentalism. I think Radkau is right if he describes this stance as a “schizophrenic” one as no human is able to do this two things at the same time – at least now, who knows about a possible cyborg future. It seems to me that the crux of environmental problems in our modern times stem from the exact opposite, as we “act globally and think locally”. It has just been a little while since our ancestors where bound to their land or town, and to expect that we can suddenly encompass the whole planet in our thinking, appears to be, gently spoken, overambitious. The more I read, write and think about environmental history, the more I get more surprised how much belief and hope in the agency of modern institutions and humans there is among the actors but also the historians themselves. Or in other words: just because we know that we created “this mess” with our technology, capitalism and individual freedom (at least that’s how a lot of stories go) doesn’t mean that we know if or how we can steer these “modern achievements” in order to clean up that mess. What I am questioning here is the idea of ecological modernization which has become dominant among most politics and societies in the Western world I would I guess. This has been to a substantial part due the “success” of the environmental movement as Radkau pointed out in his lecture, not with a smile on his face and a reference to the “irony of history”.

What I was missing in Radkau’s book was that this irony might be result of a certain way most parts of the environmental movement might have take (I am just speculating here) as soon as they entered national parliaments and politics. Another path might have lied and still lies in drawing a different conclusion from the “act globally, think locally” predicament: “think locally, act locally”. This should not be mixed up with “going back” to the pre-modern times but something quite different. As Radkau himself writes at one point: “While historians have learned to be supercautious with predictions, there is some evidence that the way to a globally sustainable environment lies more through increase forest growth, cycling and birth control than through geo-engineering, underground CO2 sequestration or giant wind farms, not to speak of nuclear power plants.” (Radkau 2013: 418). And ten pages later: “Environmentalism may offer an alternative, in so far as it emancipates from them ‘American way of life’ and returns to its original aim of improving the quality of life; this would imply a new sense of self-esteem and a revaluation of traditional lifestyles suited to the ecological conditions of particular countries” (Radkau 2013: 428).

While I would be cautious mentioning birth-control here, I would argue that there is a form environmentalism which acts in the rather private sphere: by people who re-evaluate practices which might be called “traditional” in the sense that they have been cultivated before the emergence of the industrial society. This thought can be exemplified by something I experienced today (very mundane but it might help to stress my point here): on a morning run I stopped to grap some apples from a tree which was situated next to a field in the Haga valley. There were so many that I had to walk my way back and while I was doing that I reflected on how silly the usual way of acquiring high-quality, organic and local apples is: grown in some other place in Sweden or even Europe, certified through some complex system, transported in motorized vehicles, stored in a supermarket that has to be run by electricity and workforce, the mony I need to buy these apples, the time all these processes cost – just to create something like a sustainable product and give the feeling of a sustainable consumer decision. Both practices, the apple picking and the apple purchase, might be called “environmentalist” but the apple-picking entails a completely different material outcome: the Uppsala tree, planted by someone decades ago as a common good, produces the apples for zero crowns and with the least stress on the environment (fertilizer, energy, emissions) possible. And still it might be only 1% of Uppsala’s population who enters this way of acquiring apples. Of course, not everyone in Uppsala can satisfy his or her demand of apples in this way, as there is a limited amount of free-for-all trees. But still, think of all the complexity that is created in our modern society to meet the environmentalist concerns of most people when it comes to food.

What I want to emphasize here is not criticize people for buying organic fruits in the supermarket (I do it myself more than often) but to show that environmentalism can take a very different forms. Or maybe this is the wrong way of saying it: there might be a set of thoughts and practices out there which is “good”, “sustainable”, “resilient” (call it what you want) to the environment without reference to environmentalism at all. A slogan for that might be “think locally, act locally” or “as simple as possible”. And might entail not the spread of “greening” and “ecological modernization” of all parts of our society but a reflection on current and traditional ways of living and then choosing the most convenient, simple and harmless ones to combine them. Such a development path would be highly informed by history – and that’s where I see the crucial importance of our discipline!

On the Radkau seminar and lecture 2014-11-17
Ellen Lindblom
With inspiration from question 1)
Radkau said in the seminar, that he had held a lecture on “History of future expectations”. This particular lecture was about the view of the future in Germany after World War II. “History of future expectations” is an interesting topic for today and the forecasts of climate change. Radkau told us that future expectations in history often have been wrong in retrospective. He added that politics have to have a sense for the present situation not only for the future. Actually I am not prone to agree with him on this, because I see politics to much concerned with short term goals and not what might be better in the long term even thought it might be inconvenient for the present. I am also one that thinks about climate change as an urgent threat for the future. Climate change has both a certain discourse about it and is something scientifically real. The future estimations of its effects are a complicated thing depending on almost endless amounts of factors, but today we make future predictions in another way then in the 40s. In some regards climate change has overshadowed other environmental issues, yes, but it has also incorporated other more “traditional” environmental issues such as loss of species, deforestation and water security.
Is there a lack of focus in the climate debate or is it just such a complex and vast issue in it selves? Would the cause win or lose on focus? The climate change debate inherent some of the elements Radkau brought up in his lecture about environmentalism as a whole; a diversity and or tension within it, such as grass root and local initiatives as well as top down politics. The climate movement is also part of the “new type” of environmental movement with new forms of communication and not one single focus target such as nuclear power plants. The “movement” is not the same as in the sixties. Still much is similar to the character points of environmentalism or the age of ecology (in a political sense), Radkau brought up in his lecture:
1. It belongs to the social movement
2. Has Ideological and spiritual roots
3. Anxiety and fears
I think the climate movement has tried with the big ungraspable threat and now is focusing on more graspable issues, for instance flooding. It was hard to know exactly what Radkau meant sometimes and I never understood if he thought that a successful environmental movement needs a “clear target” or not as the earlier movements had according to him. Radkau also argued for schizophrenia in the popular concept “Think global, act local”. A concept often heard in relation to climate change. He thought it was not possible to do this. If that is true then the climate movement has problems in front of it.
Radkau does not have a “grand theory” or big story and he’s is careful about predictions based on his research. This is both a strength because it shows how diverse the society is but it is also a weakness if you can´t make connections between spatial and temporal findings (what Paul Sinclair was heading at in his question). At the same time Radkau said that peculiarity’s of a region or country is discovered trough a broader perspective. It is how you see differences. I am not quite sure what to make of all this.

Sorry Ellen, of course you were at the open lecture since you talked about Paul Sinclair’s comment…. Hjärnsläpp

Response to Anna by Morag

I was intrigued by your response as it corresponded rather well with some of my own musings. And you provide quite a few difficult questions to ponder. ☺ Just today I was going over my assumptions when it comes to nature conservation issues and whether they predefine the way I see an issue. While not entirely the same problem, you wrote about “people being mislead and acting on misinformation because of an unquestioned allegiance to the movement.” While writing about environmental and environmental history topics does not require allegiance to a movement, it still provides us with certain ways of thinking which shape our academic contributions.

Apparently we will never escape the endless spiral of problematic definitions. Interdisciplinary efforts do not seem to ease this up, and I have thought about the confusion of social sciences and humanities focusing on topics such as ecology before as well.

Oh! I missed the lecture, but apparently Radkau did indeed cover issue to do with time. Although just knowing he puts forward a uni-dimensional scale does not say much to me on its own. Worth looking into though.

Reply to Anna’s reflection

Thank you Anna for your thoughtful reflection on these various points in Radkau’s seminar and lecture. The question of definitions in environmental history is haunting me as well since I have been trained in the social sciences, a group of disciplines who try to do “science” on objects which might be varying most in the world out there: human perspectives, values and behaviour. To make that academic endeavour possible we were forced to be as clear as possible about the concepts we use in our writing. In the humanities and history there seems to be much more freedom if it comes to that, something I am enjoying and struggling with at the same time.

So what about Radkau’s conclusion that environmentalism could be the first sign of a New Enlightenment? If it is the environmental movement which brings light in the darkness of our times, then the question is what has to be illuminated? It might be the ignorance of the relatedness of the world, its ecological character, at least in the Western world. Here I have my problems already because as one can read in Radkau’s book the environmental movement did not create this world view but found it in the readings of Eastern philosophies and others which had been forgotten for a long time. In this sense the environmental movement translated “old” knowledge into the modern times, creating new terms and theories, building up on these, and posing them against the dominant world view of the 20th century, and finally starting to change the material foundation of societies. The German “Energiewende” might be most recent and vivid example for how the interplay of ideas and actions can change whole structures.

But coming back to the initial question: is it legitimate to call this historical change a “New Enlightenment” or the rise of a new “Age of Ecology”? I think only if you share the assumption of a progressivist development of history: if one age follows on another, if one enlightenment illuminates the spaces the previous left in shades, then yes, we might have experienced something originally new with environmentalism. But if you don’t (and I feel that I do after more than one your studying this programme) you see something quite different: the ways how different kind of knowledge becomes dominant in societies, how it changes the modes of thinking and acting, not in a progressive but in a contingent manner. From that perspective environmentalism has changed something in all of our heads and hands but the question is what and to what extend?

The senators who voted against the Keystone XL pipeline yesterday might have been convinced by successful campaigning by persistent environmentalists – but they might vote in favor of fracking in another instance because they believe that cheep energy is needed to fuel the American industry and households. At the same time there might be thousands of people who change their energy provider to 100% renewables but still fly every year to visit friends and families on the continent. The point I want to make here is that environmentalism has not replaced the old set of thoughts and practices of people and thus the “old age”. It has reconfigured them – in unprecedented ways, not forever but for the present. In ten 10, 20 or 50 years doing something “environmentally-friendly” will mean something completely different, probably we won’t use that term anymore at some point. Thus I would conclude that calling environmentalism a “New Enlightenment” or a new “Age of ecology” has more to do with a certain image of history than what actually happened since we speak of environmentalism. If you call me a postmodernist now, you won’t do me any harm 🙂