Dipesh Chakrabarty uses the phrase "species thinking" to characterize a major twist in social theory. This mode of thinking takes humanity-as-species for its object: a recognition of "boundary parameters of human existence" "species may indeed be the name of a placeholder for an emergent, new universal history of humans"
Dipesh Chakrabarty uses the phrase "species thinking" to characterize a major twist in social theory. This mode of thinking takes humanity-as-species for its object: a recognition of "boundary parameters of human existence" "species may indeed be the name of a placeholder for an emergent, new universal history of humans"
Dipesh Chakrabarty uses the phrase "species thinking" to characterize a major twist in social theory. This mode of thinking takes humanity-as-species for its object: a recognition of "boundary parameters of human existence" "species may indeed be the name of a placeholder for an emergent, new universal history of humans"
Dipesh Chakrabarty uses the phrase species thinking to characterize a major twist in social theory. This is a mode of thinking that takes humanity-as-species for its object: a shift from the condition of species being as invoked by Marx, towards an analytic awareness based on a recognition of boundary parameters of human existence.[i] For an historian and critic of globalizationthat earth-encompassing phenomena, feeding on and reproducing inequality wherever it travelsthis is a notable shift in focus for Chakrabarty, because it entails thinking humanity in universal terms. He elaborates: These parameters are independent of capitalismThey have been stable for much longer than the histories of [its] institutions . These parameters come into view out of a breach between the present historiography of globalization and the historiography demanded by anthropogenic theories of climate change. Species, he acknowledges, is a word that will never occur in any standard history or political-economic analysis of globalization. In contrast, species thinking is connected to the enterprise of deep history (213) or the Anthropocenethe idea that humanity has impacted the planet in such a thoroughgoing manner as to constitute a distinct, new geological era. Revoicing Walter Benjamin, he suggests, species may indeed be the name of a placeholder for an emergent, new universal history of humans that flashes up in the moment of danger that is climate change. In this precarious moment, the power/history frame of social theory proves singularly inadequate: The critique that sees humanity as an effect of power is insufficient in dealing with the crisis of global warming (221). In this view, a cultural analysis limited to assessing the social conditions of possibility of an idea or life formprivileging capital and politics (e.g., neoliberalism), reinscribing or delimiting the social as a uniquely humanreproduces anthropocentrism and is insufficient for grasping our species predicament. For a species that has given a good deal of thought to species, Chakrabarty concept is a notable development. The fact that species are good to think provided the basis for articulating sociality for perhaps as long as humans formed into durable group arrangements. As well, this theoretical formulation crucially opened an enormous intellectual capacity to recognize logical or analytical thought operating on and through a variety of nonhumans, while leveling the hierarchical contrast between civilized and primitive thought. Strikingly, the recognition of species being was also central for the transformation of social theorizing with Marx. In the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Marx declared, In the mode of life activity lies the entire character of a species, its species character, and free conscious activity is the species-character of man that odd species that bears the history making capacity to transform life itself. Markedly underscoring the fundamentally social orientation of this concept, species thinking arises out of an analytical intuition, rather than a phenomenological sensibility. Thats because, in Chakrabartys formulation, it is not possible to grasp species thinking experientially: We humans never experience ourselves as a species.There could be no phenomenology of us as a speciesno one ever experiences being a concept. This arguably matches the central tenet of biological thought: that natural selection works on the individual, rather than the species; the phenomenological experience of species being is continually forestalled by the operation of selective pressures on individual, competitive, reproductive units. But if not phenomenologically, then through our capacity to recognize both culture, generally, and its similar operations amongst other species. For the very recognition of this moment of peril is linked to the transformative efficacy of the Anthropocene to raise artificial selection onto a competitive plain with its natural counterpart. Aesop's Anthropology Theorizing culture across species lines [i] Dipesh Chakrabarty. 2009. The Climate of History: Four Theses. Critical Inquiry 35 (2): 197222. This entry was posted in Horticultural hermeneutic. Bookmark the permalink. Aesop's Anthropology Proudly powered by WordPress.
The Critique of Science Historical Materialist and Dialectical Studies On The Relation of The Modern Science of Nature To The Bourgeoisie and Capital24