Risks and the Anthropocene. Julien Rebotier

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ of some geographers to give a full place to social and political issues in environmental problems is at once symptomatic, blinding and declining:

       – It is symptomatic of a modern world cornered at the threshold of upheavals it helped cause, and unable to think of itself simultaneously as an element taken in these upheavals. Tetanized by their power and its consequences which put them under obligation, modern actors evade their responsibility (Latour 1991) and try to disqualify their denigrators, who support the entry into political debate of an eminently social environmental question. The rise of the ecological question in politics, which has been growing in France since Jacques Ellul (1912–1994), Bernard Charbonneau (1910–1996) and Serge Moscovici (1925–2014), is referred to as the excesses of obscurantism – the Amish model and the oil lamp – or to the fascist threat – ayatollahs and other green Khmers (Ferry 1992; Brunel and Pitte 2010).

       – It is blinding, because it masks the efforts, already mentioned, of fine integration of the natural and the social. Thinkers of the milieu5, such as Reclus or Kropotkin (regularly mobilized today in literature on the Anthropocene), put forward an idea that is not exteriority to the social world, but rather the embodiment of reciprocal relations between societies and a natural environment (in the sense of what surrounds), whether living or not. The notion did not resist neither the regional approach, nor later the spatial turn of quantitative geography, while abandoning nuances and complexity of the idea of milieu (Robic 1992). During the 1970s, the notion of environment became institutionalized as the systemic study of a complex of interdependent societies and natural environments in the form of a geosystem structured in geography (Bertrand 1968). At the same time, national interdisciplinary scientific programs sought to combine social and physical approaches to an environmental issue that was emerging as a social issue (Tissier 1992). In spite of the resistance to make room for social questions, these two precedents (and there are many others, in a wide range from Jean Tricart to Augustin Berque) show how much what will be called environmental geography only gradually, laboriously, painfully integrates the social question.

       – Finally, this resistance promises to be on the decline insofar as the stigma of a major split in the discipline (between physical geography and human geography) is pushing younger generations to defend a programmatic horizon for a radically integrated “environmental geography” (Chartier and Rodary 2016). Another informal group formed in 2016, called Cynorhodon, is, for example, behind the Critical Dictionary of the Anthropocene (Cynorhodon 2020). The spirit of the times is one of permeability between disciplines, but also between questionings, from the plural register of environmental humanities (Choné et al. 2016) to the anchoring in critical geography of a physical practice of the discipline (Di Mauro 2015; Dufour 2015; Dufour and Lespez 2019). In the wake of this new breath of environmentalism on renewed practices and issues of geography, we find the emergence in France of the scientific current of political ecology (Gautier and Benjaminsen 2012). The specificities of the corporation, the institutional structuring of the community, the proximity between geography and public policy or the development of related problematic fields (such as environmental justice) certainly contribute to explaining the late introduction in France of a current formulated in the 1970s and well established in English-language, but also Spanish-language, environmental geographies (Kull and Batterbury 2017).

      Thus, the evolution of French geography with respect to the environmental question is not induced by an Anthropocene moment. Rather, it is part of the long history of a disciplinary trajectory, its structuring narratives and competing paradigms and approaches. The Anthropocene moment and its environmental emergency today (like the awareness of these issues in the 1970s) sharpen the tensions within a discipline that is constantly working, recomposing and repositioning itself. The “missed appointment” (Chartier and Rodary 2016) of an integrating environment for geography at the beginning of the 20th century could today present a new face.

      This is the meaning of the status of the social in the environment. Natural, ecological, physical conditions or planetary limits are not, for the social sciences, the cardinal terms of the environmental problem. Rather, through the classic but robustly updated idea of the co-production of nature (Braun and Castree 1998; Ekers and Loftus 2012), it is social and political conditions that are central to ways of regulating a shared, safer and more sustainable world. The environmental problem does not surround the social world. It is a product of it, the result of social relations and interactions between societies and their environments (Ribot 2014).

      Seen from the South, what difference does it make to interrogate risks in the Anthropocene? What new things does the Anthropocene introduce for those whose world has already collapsed or whose inequalities are already difficult to bear (Bouisset et al. 2018)? It has been known (read and written about) for decades that development (a form of social relations and relationships with the environment) constitutes the matrix of the greatest social challenges – with multiple environmental variations. What remains is to put relational intelligence at the service of one of the fundamental mandates of risk studies: to practically and sustainably reduce the risks of disaster by pointing out and acting on the multiple causes and on the differentiated consequences of harmful events.

      I.4. Insights on risks in the Anthropocene era

Based on the Anthropocene moment, nine chapters have been proposed for the study and management of risks by providing elements of response in three parts, posed as three questions. The first part, “Toward new risks?”, discusses types of risk (coastal risks, fires, urban climate) that have emerged or been renewed by the Anthropocene context. The second part, “Recompositions for the study and management of risks?”, evaluates what the Anthropocene moment is doing to the classic themes of risk studies: the risk society, the management of disasters or prevention policies that are always the mark of attributes of power. The third part, “What consequences for a changing modernity?”, takes a step back from the Anthropocene moment and draws the (at least potential) contours of future worlds. It includes an ethnography of flood prediction systems in Europe, an analysis of the shift to a world of uncertainty and a practical philosophical examination of an old challenge for action: the necessary action in a radically uncertain world.

      Each contribution is positioned in its own way around common problematic orientations, recalled by this general introduction. It is possible to navigate between the autonomous chapters because of explicit cross-references throughout the text and to the general index of the book.

      These reflections all feed questioning in the social sciences. They bring together authors who, for the most part, are involved in risk studies. At the heart of the book, highlighted by reflections on the Anthropocene, we find risks as research objects, as supports and markers of the social and as modalities and manifestations of interactions between societies and environments. The general perspective assumes a form of déjà vu by being part of several decades of social science research on risks. The notion of the Anthropocene, despite its success, should neither be used to neglect the critical knowledge already produced on risks, their study and their management, nor to elude the obstacles already identified. The introduction of the notion of the Anthropocene into the debate on risk thus serves as a revelation of certain salient points, or as a moment of reference for drawing up forward-looking assessments.

      I.5. References

      Anders, G. (1995). De la bombe et de notre aveuglement face à l’apocalypse. Titanic, Paris.

      Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage Publishing, London and New York.

      Berdoulay, V. (2008). La formation de l’école française de géographie (1870–1914). Éditions du CTHS, Paris.

      Bertrand, G. (1968). Paysages et géographie СКАЧАТЬ