The Sustainability of an Anthropology of the Anthropocene

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper gives the impression of having been written in great haste. Citations lack page numbers, authors are mentioned several times before being referenced, examples are somewhat thrown together. Parts lack clear arguments and systematic analysis thereof, and most of all, the overall purpose and message of the paper is not well defined, no clear hypothesis is defended. Historical analyses are incomplete and unsystematic, and contemporary guidelines remain underdefined. The paper reads, at most, as an opinion piece. This paper would have to undergo substantial revisions before it could become published as a scholarly article, so I see no alternative but to reject the current work. Specifics below.

 

Intro

- Tyrannosaurus Rex: use standard species nomenclature and italicization

- "Let us propose that ‘a sustainable system is one which is capable of reproducing itself for an extended period without undermining its own conditions, absorbing incremental changes without collapsing.’"

=> define ‘reproducing’ and 'its own conditions'

 

Sustainability as social reproduction

- structural-functionalism: add references

- "According to its adherents, societies generally contain mechanisms enabling them to reproduce themselves indefinitely, regardless of the turnover in personnel: ‘The King is dead, long live the King’."

Reproduction is a difficult term here. Unless the new king is the old king's son, there is no reproduction but rejuvenation. For societies to reproduce, they would have to make more societies.

- The constant renewal Radcliffe-Brown was referring to today associates with the concepts of self-organization and self-maintenance. Why are these term not used instead of reproduction?

- Bateson's concept of homeostasis (self-organization and self-maintenance) is also not to be confused with reproduction.

- The concept of negentropy needs more contextualization.

- Examples given are too numerous and diverse, and they take attention away from the main points being made.

 

Contradictions of sustainability

 

- Growth versus sustainability is an interesting topic but it is not analyzed further, instead the discussion turns to the concept of Nachhaltigkeit

- Page numbers of references are missing

- Sentences like the following need analysis and contextualization or they become quodlibet "The global problems of ecological sustainability are directly linked to modernity, capitalism, industrialism and the ideology of growth and progress"

"As has often been pointed out", "It is also well known", by who, when, where, how?

 

A new world, a new anthropology

- "The classic anthropologists whose models of stability and steady states I discussed in the first part of this article made it easy for themselves. They generally ignored the kind of societies in which they themselves lived — fast-paced, evolving, changing, riding the waves of progress and growth ideologies"

made it easy for themselves?

- "Contemporary anthropologists speak about a damaged planet, the Capitalocene and the Plantationocene, the Homogenocene and overheating"

Add references

- CP Snow, reference.

"Overheating can also be illustrated by rubbing your hands together, something we often do on cold days in northern Europe. They warm up, but create friction as they do so. Now, if you could rub your hands together really, really fast, they would eventually burn up. But you can't do that. We have an inbuilt thermostat which tells us when to stop. The problem with overheating is that there is no thermostat. There is no direction, no ultimate goal for the frantic changes that can be observed almost everywhere (allow me for once to bracket the Covid-19 pandemic). "

=> None of this is scientifically correct

 

The post-1991 world

This part too lacks in systematicity and structure whereby the different people, political systems, countries, and continents are presented and woven into a narrative.

 

A balloon about to burst

Again, many sweeping and moralizing statements, but where is the analysis.

 

Refocusing social theory

same

 

Some contributions from anthropology

 

The goals and merits of the new anthropology referred to need better contextualization and analysis.

What are the guidelines, take home messages, suggestions?

 

Author Response

Thank you for the comments, even if they are rather scathing. Most of them are nevertheless pertinent. The references are now more accurate, and I have inserted direct quotations where relevant. The conceptual discussions have also been reworked for the sake of precision, although not all of the objections are immediately relevant; the term "reproduction", for example, is used in this field to denote stability over time. In order to avoid confusion, this has nevertheless been clarified. The style has also been modified somewhat to satisfy certain academic standards. The conclusion has also been rewritten substantially in order to clarify the argument. The middle section about overheating has been rewritten and shortened; redundant passages and examples mentioned in passing have been removed to strengthen the focus on the main argument. On the whole, this review -- however bad-tempered -- was very useful and has been of great help during revision.

Reviewer 2 Report

Very well written article.

Author Response

Thank you for this! A revised version is being uploaded shortly.

Reviewer 3 Report

I find the paper interesting. I would suggest first to correctly cite previous texts already published by the author. 

Second, there is a lack of discussion of the anthropocene as a contested concept in social sciences, namely geography, political economy, anthropology, history, and sociology.

Third, the paper is not formated to the journal style and norms.

 

For the review of the paper I would suggest avoiding too much similarities with the book of 2016 and the text of 2018. I don’t know if the 2018 lecture was published or not. 

 

Compare

The text in the current proposal submitted to the journal: 

“Modernity and enlightenment did not, in the end, eradicate hateful ideologies, sectarian violence and fanaticism, but sometimes seemed to encourage them. Wars continued to break out. Inequality and poverty did not go away, but were made more visible in the era of global neoliberalism. Recurrent economic crises forced economists to concede, reluctantly, that theirs was not a precise science after all. Although many countries were democratic in name, a growing number of people felt that important changes were taking place in their lives and immediate surroundings without their having been consulted beforehand. Significantly, the forces of progress turned out to be a double-edged sword. What seemed to have been the salvation of humanity for two hundred years, namely inexpensive and accessible energy based on fossil fuels, was about to become our damnation through environmental destruction and climate change.”

 

with a text of the author (2016):

“In the last few decades, the confidence of the development enthusiasts

has been dampened. Modernity and enlightenment did not eradicate

atavistic ideologies, sectarian violence and fanaticism. Wars continued

to break out. Inequality and poverty did not go away. Recurrent crises

with global repercussions forced economists to concede, reluctantly, at

least when caught with their pants down, that theirs was not a precise

science after all. Although many countries were democratic in name, a

growing number of people felt that highly consequential changes were

taking place in their lives and immediate surroundings without their

having been consulted beforehand. And, most importantly, the forces

of progress turned out to be a double-edged sword. What had been our

salvation for 200 years, namely inexpensive and accessible energy, was

about to become our damnation through environmental destruction and

climate change.”

 

or a text (working paper, 2018)

“Modernity and enlightenment did not, in the end, eradicate hateful ideologies, sectarian violence and fanaticism, but sometimes seemed to encourage them. Wars continued to break out. Inequality and poverty did not go away, but were made more visible in the era of global neoliberalism. Recurrent economic crises forced economists to concede, reluctantly, that theirs was not a precise science after all. Although many countries were democratic in name, a growing number of people felt that important changes were taking place in their lives and immediate surroundings without their having been consulted beforehand. Significantly, the forces of progress turned out to be a double-edged sword. What seemed to have been the salvation of humanity for two hundred years, namely inexpensive and accessible energy based on fossil fuels, was about to become our damnation through environmental destruction and climate change.”

 

The author does not correctly cite the sentences. Most are rephrased. 

Other example on page 14 of the submitted text:

 

“Writing on the cusp of the industrial revolution, Thomas Malthus famously predicted widespread famine and social unrest unless population was kept in check. His Essay on the Principle of Population from 1798 had just been published when the fossil fuel revolution took off, almost immediately proving him wrong by enabling a massive growth in productivity. But some of Malthus' insights may still turn out to be valuable, now that the side-effects of the fossil fuel revolution are becoming so visible. It may indeed be argued that if population had not begun to grow exponentially in the nineteenth century, humanity might have evaded the most serious side-effects of the fossil fuel revolution. Had there just been a billion of us, we could probably have done pretty much as we liked.”

 

and text of the same author on p. 12:

“Writing on the cusp of the industrial revolution, Thomas Malthus famously predicted widespread famine and social unrest unless population was kept in check.

His Essay on the Principle of Population from 1798 was still brand new when the fossil fuel revolution took off,  proving him wrong by enabling an immense growth in productivity.

But some of Malthus' insights may still turn out to be valuable, now that the side-­‐effects of the

fossil fuel revolution are becoming so visible. It may indeed be argued that if population had not

begun to grow exponentially in the nineteenth century, humanity might have evaded the most serious

side-­‐effects of the fossil fuel revolution. Had there just been a billion of us, we could probably have

done as we liked.”

There are two previous texts of the same author that are used for this paper.

One is a book with one very similar paragraph (Eriksen, Thomas Hylland (2016) Overheating: An Anthropology of Accelerated Change. London: Pluto.) and the Cooling down the overheated Anthropocene Lessons from anthropology and cultural history 2018 Gutorm Gjessing lecture, Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo available at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c03b76b96e76fd25bee32fe/t/5d6baee1c6d43900015c5908/1567338215756/Gjessing+lecture+2018.pdf 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. Yes, I admit that there is considerable overlap between some sections in this article and previous work. This has now been rectified through deletion, rewriting and new examples. I have, moreover, gone through the article carefully and made many minor improvements and amendments as well, especially at the conceptual level. Notably, I have included a critical discussion of the Anthropocene concept, but also on the notion of sustainability.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments were neither bad-tempered, nor scathing. Rather they come from a place of serious concern about the quality of the present paper. I do not feel the author has taken my comments seriously, and as it stands i cannot suggest to go ahead with publication. 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments

Reviewer 3 Report

I have read the new paper.

It has been improved accordingly to the recommendations.

I would suggest its publication after a final reading.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments