Critique du géo-constructivisme

Abstract

L’objectif de cet article est le repérage de la composante constructiviste du « discours dominant » qui, de Bruno Latour à la géo-ingénierie, conduit à la justification de l’Anthropocène et des délices du développement technologique débridé. J’appelle géo-constructivisme la politique globale qui a généré les changements climatiques et les solutions technologiques qui sont proposées pour les réguler.

A tragic ethics for the Anthropocene: On the unmanageable and impossible in management learning

“…Of the various possible beginnings of the Anthropocene, Bonneuil and Fressoz (2017) argued that the starting date proposed by Crutzen and Stoermer (2000) – 1784, when James Watt patented the steam engine and the scientific community began to obtain more specific information about the increased amount of gases in the atmosphere caused by industrialization – has validity, as long as we consider that the course of these 250 years was marked by many silenced voices that pointed to the known risks of ‘human extrusion’ (Neyrat, 2014), which would inevitably lead to the ‘intrusion of Gaia’ (Stengers, 2015). Gaia should be understood as a form of space experience that materializes the temporality of the Anthropocene, involving the assemblage of processes and relationships among ‘living beings, oceans, atmosphere, climate, [and] more or less fertile soils’ (Stengers, 2015: 38).…”

“…I propose an understanding of the Anthropocene based on the interpretation by contemporary philosophers and geographers who have reinvigorated Lacanian thought on the idea of materialist ontology (Neyrat, 2014; Pohl, 2020) and based on the ‘ontological incompleteness of reality itself’ (Zizek, 2009: 90). This interpretation is based on Lacan’s concept of the Real and his understanding of the world as being ontologically incomplete.…”

“…Even in the MOS field, there are still few critical analyses on the subject, which have neither questioned nor ended up incorporating the idea of humanity as a species, supported by the concept of the Anthropocene, in addition to relying on the possibility of a harmonious relationship between humankind and nature/nonhumankind as a viable response to the Anthropocene (Beacham, 2018; Ergene et al, 2021; Heikkurinen et al, 2021). Based on relational ontologies, such analyses run the risk of being appropriated by the dominant view of the Anthropocene, which also considers thinking about the link between humans and nonhumans but ignores the ‘multiplicity of human scenes’ (Neyrat, 2014), which leads to the apolitical position of the concept (Campbell et al, 2019).…”

“…In this essay, I initially propose a discussion of the concept of the Anthropocene based on the negative and psychoanalytically inspired ontology that has already been considered by a variety of scholars, especially in the fields of geography and philosophy (Neyrat, 2014;Pohl, 2020;Swyngedouw and Ernstson, 2018;Zizek, 2008), to achieve a strategy that decenters the anthropos from which the concept evolved. Based on this ontology, I propose a tragic ethics for knowing and learning in and about ML in the Anthropocene, taking as inspiration the Lacanian tragic ethics (Lacan, 1992).…”