April 16, 2014 § 4 Comments
[Image: Vincent Fournier]
I’ll be speaking with some of the usual suspects at the International Big History Association Conference this August at Dominican University in San Rafael, California. Our Panel description and abstracts can be found below. (Don’t know what Big History is? Me neither until a few weeks ago. Here’s a short primer.)
Panel Title: Cosmopolitics and the Big Journey: Resolving Nature-Culture Dualisms
Abstract: In its research and teaching programs, Big History facilitates the integration of human and natural history into a multidimensional collective history. There is still much work that remains to be done to articulate collective history without falling back into longstanding dualisms that separate humans from nature. Along those lines, Big History can benefit from a dialogical encounter with others who are oriented toward overcoming the human/nature dualism, including those involved in the Journey of the Universe project and, in a very different vein, philosophers like Isabelle Stengers, Bruno Latour, and others associated with a theoretical movement called “cosmopolitics,” which aims to overcome the separation between the natural world (kosmos) and the constitution of human civilization (politikos). Initially developed by Stengers following her work with Ilya Prigogine, cosmopolitics aims to articulate a collective history that affirms the intertwining of human societies with the evolutionary unfolding of the cosmos. Cosmopolitics draws more explicitly than Big History on philosophical concepts useful for overcoming the dualisms separating a realm of humans (subjects, values) from a realm of nature (objects, facts), including concepts associated with process philosophy (Alfred North Whitehead), philosophical biology (Jakob von Uexküll), and French post-structuralist philosophy (Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida). This panel introduces the idea of cosmopolitics and situates it in relationship to similar approaches to collective history (e.g., Big History, Journey of the Universe), drawing particular attention to the importance of accounting for the axiological dimensions (e.g., ethics, aesthetics, and spirituality) of our collective history.
Paper Title: Histories of Lived Experience: Intertwining Aesthetics, Ecology, and Ethology
Abstract: This paper examines the contributions of the process philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) and the biologist Jacob von Uexküll (1864-1944) to an understanding of the aesthetic dimension of Big History, specifically by focusing on the ecological aesthetics of living organisms. Writing in the early half of the twentieth century, Whitehead and Uexküll remain important contributors to contemporary issues in ethology, ecology, and aesthetics. Specifically, Whitehead’s critique of the bifurcation of nature and his philosophy of organism provide important tools for thinking about the multicentric nature of ecosystems, which is to say, thinking about the multiple forms of interiority (agency, value, and subjectivity) distributed throughout ecosystems. Likewise, Uexkull’s account of multispecies perspectives (“umwelts”) remains a cornerstone of contemporary ethology. By considering Whitehead and Uexküll together a comprehensive approach to ecology is rendered that includes the lived experience of individual organisms alongside the physical structures by which those experiences are enacted. This paper suggests that an ecological approach to ethology and aesthetics complicates traditional philosophical distinctions between ontology and epistemology, and between the empirical and the transcendental, by placing both in contexts of evolutionary process. Beginning with an account of Whitehead’s speculative philosophy the paper moves toward a reading of Uexküll’s umwelten and considers the implication of both accounts for philosophical approaches to the aesthetic dimension of Big History. Aesthetic value is not the sole property of human beings but is evident throughout the entire evolution of life and, for Whitehead, throughout the whole universe.
Paper Title: Concepts for Collective History: Cosmopolitics and Journey of the Universe
Abstract: Cosmopolitics shares an aim with Big History and Journey of the Universe (JOTU): to articulate a collective history that integrates the human and the natural world. Whereas the term “cosmopolitanism” normally refers to a universal humanity (e.g., human rights), Isabelle Stengers developed her concept of cosmopolitics as a way to bring the cosmos into the procedures, institutions, and experiences that make up human society. Cosmopolitics critiques the bifurcation of the world into two halves: one side populated by humans, values, meaning, and subjectivity, and the other side populated by nature, facts, matter, and objectivity. Cosmopolitics thus facilitates a redistribution of categories such as value, agency, subjectivity, and experience, such that those categories apply no longer exclusively to humans but in various capacities to all beings. The cosmological scope of this redistribution resonates with the work of the JOTU project. While cosmopolitics derives primarily from philosophers (Stengers, Latour, and others drawing from poststructuralist and process philosophies), the JOTU project was developed amidst the intersection of cosmology (Brian Swimme) and the field of religion and ecology (Mary Evelyn Tucker). Swimme and Tucker carry forward the integrative vision of the cultural historian Thomas Berry, for whom the cosmos cannot be sufficiently understood as a series of objects but must be understood as a “communion of subjects,” such that meaning and value are woven throughout the entire fabric of the evolutionary journey. Cosmopolitics and JOTU provide concepts that assist the effort of Big History to continue articulating an integrative history beyond human/nature dualisms.
Paper Title: Post-Secular Justice and the Ghosts of Big History
Abstract: The poststructuralist movement of post-World War II French theory contributed to various criticisms of the dualistic structures prevalent in modern thought, including the dualism between human culture and nonhuman nature. Along these lines, concepts developed by poststructuralists can facilitate the integration of human and natural history, as is evident in the influence of poststructuralism on cosmopolitical accounts of collective history. This paper focuses on contributions to Big History in the work of the poststructuralist philosopher Jacques Derrida, who developed the theoretical method called “deconstruction.” I indicate how deconstruction welcomes the “otherness” of beings, which has an ethically compelling force that puts into question the boundaries of animal/human and nature/culture dualisms. For Derrida, the historical work of remembering the past is also the work of mourning others (including nonhuman others) and doing justice to their memory. Although Derrida is a relatively atheistic and materialistic philosopher, he argues that, insofar as this call for justice is inherent to the work of history, there is a messianic impulse in history, an impulse to welcome a more just future by reflecting on past injustices. In other words, irreducible to a series of facts, history is an encounter with haunting memories—ghosts. The pursuit of justice requires scholars and teachers of Big History to cultivate messianic attention to the haunting otherness of past others. Not secular but not quite “religious,” it is a post-secular messianic attention, which accounts for the calls for justice in history without confessing adherence to any particular Messiah or religious tradition.
October 9, 2013 § 46 Comments
[Photo: Casey Cripe]
Alva Noë recently posted a short commentary on the entanglement of science and values. I think readers will be interested in it. At first blush Noë’s point is fairly straight forward: Science and values are always entangled because the very characteristics science depends on — reason, consistency, coherence, plausibility, and replicability — are themselves values. Without some kind of agreement that these are the values that best serve the creation of scientific facts there would be no foundation upon which the sciences could maintain consistency. Science depends on a set of extra-scientific decisions, and we need to pursue and cultivate these decisions in order for the possibility of science to emerge in the first place. Simple enough. « Read the rest of this entry »
May 21, 2013 § 5 Comments
May 21, 2013 § 7 Comments
Cosmopolitics and reconstituting worlds; Concrete political clashes between worlds; 1995 majority of French population believes the future of their children to be worse than their own; the end of the trust in progress; Globalization; sacrifice for competition; Political Ontology; civilizing modern practices
What are concepts good for? Science wars—scientists and critical thinkers—rationality, universality; modern hegemony—knowledge cannot be about representation only
Concepts have a power; the self-confirming power of representationalism; the concept of practice is introduced to divide scientists (to break “Science” up); open up a space for thought in which the monolithic figure of objective knowledge is broken
Reformulating the claims of the sciences rather than directly denying them—situating objectivity as a rare achievement. The particular and exceptional nature of objective interpretation; the general reduction. « Read the rest of this entry »