Text
E-book Vital Reenchantments: Biophilia, Gaia, Cosmos, and the Affectively Ecological
Not all charms fly at the touch of cold philosophy.1 This work examines so-called “cold philosophy,” or science, that does pre-cisely the opposite—rather than mercilessly emptying out and unweaving, it operates as a philosophy that animates. Taking up a selection of popular works by scientists who have engaged in attempts to rail against the idea of disenchantment (Entzau-berung) first introduced by Max Weber, it investigates the con-cepts and strategies of scientific reenchantment. It demonstrates how the “poet-in-scientists”2 operating during the late 1970s and ’80s direct our attention to the marvelous unfolding of life in the world and the cosmos. Both in terms of the subjects they take up and the ethics they espouse, these figures attempt to turn science to life in an age in which the counter-culture in particu-lar had made the institution of science synonymous with tech-nologies of destruction and alienation. What is so unique about them is that they reenchant without pandering to what Dawkins will later term “cosmic sentimentality”3—Carl Sagan may have said “We are made of starstuff,”4 but he would never insist, as Joni Mitchell did in 1969, that “we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden.”5 Instead, they insist on a third way that does not rely on the idea of an ecological Eden — a vigorously vital material-ism in which the affective trumps the sentimental. Although not without its precedents,6 this vital materialism has found unique expression in the set of works I will discuss. Its reverberation in ecological circles (and well beyond), moreover, merit the works’ reevaluation. Far from existing merely as books that popularize science, these works reanimate a world that was, in any case, never really dead.More concretely, this book looks at what I call “affective wonder,” understood as the experience of and attunement to novel affects, within a selection of works by E.O. Wilson, James Lovelock, and Carl Sagan. Although the works it focuses upon, namely Biophilia (1984), Gaia (1979),7 and Cosmos (1980), were all published within five years of one another during what one might reasonably still call the dawn of the environmental move-ment, the concepts they flesh out have continued to circulate since their publication and live on in ecological and popular thought today; they elaborate what I will call affective ecologies. I will also insist that their historical emergence was no accident: They respond to an ever-deepening sense of environmental cri-sis, certainly, but along with it they respond to perhaps more than marginally related narratives of the large-scale disenchant-ment brought on by modernity or science. More often than not, they respond to a mixture of the two. Their mode of reenchanting may thus be understood as vital in three senses: first, in their celebration of the bountiful and precarious life on Earth8; secondly, in the manner in which they reverberate with and prefigure the scientifically informed “vital materialism” appearing in the twenty-first century; and thirdly, in their orientation towards the most basic ecological concerns — the protection and maintenance of life and living systems. As Jane Bennett writes, “To be enchanted is, in the mo-ment of its activation, to assent wholeheartedly to life — not to this or that particular condition or aspect of it but to the expe-rience of living itself.”9 In reaching out to science in order to reenchant, these authors also insist on its life-affirming qualities and the potential it has to serve as an ally in ecological struggles.
Tidak tersedia versi lain