The Business School in the Anthropocene: Parasite Logic and Pataphysical Reasoning for a Working Earth

Abstract

This article emerged from the inaugural annual workshop of the Anthropocene Research Group in 2019-a joint initiative between the Schools of Geology and Business at the University of Leicester supported by Leicester Institute of Advance Studies (LIAS) and the School of Business. Discussing the management learning and education with colleagues from natural science and computer science allowed to initiate an interdisciplinary discussion.We would like to thank the reviewers for their time and efforts. Their critical and insightful contributions really supported the development of this article. We also thank the special issue guest editors, Robin Holt, Morten Sørensen Thaning, Mike Zunde, Boston Russ Vince and Bill Foster, who provided guidance and thought-provoking suggestions in the special issue workshop in Copenhagen. Finally, we would like to thank TEMA Institute at Linköping University for the lively debate on an earlier version of the paper.

Milking It for All It’s Worth: Unpalatable Practices, Dairy Cows and Veterinary Work?

“…The extent, breadth and gravity of these matters might encourage us to consider posthumanist ethics as one possible avenue (see Gasparin et al 2020, for a related perspective) to study the organisation of human-animal relations and engage with animals from alternative (non-anthropocentric) ethical points of view (Asberg 2013). However, this behoves humans to rescind notions of exceptionalism, by acknowledging how the 'dance' between human and material agency (Pickering 1995) cannot simply be dictated by (hu)man-made rules.…”

“…For it is 'the nature of the material partner [that] structures the outcome' in unpredictable and uncontrollable directions that will exceed our attempts to prepare, or avoid travesty through immunisation, ironically because 'when the dancing partners are microbes, we can no longer assume that it is the human partner who takes the lead' (Smart and Smart 2017, p. 41). Similarly, Gasparin et al (2020) advocate 'lasting, mutualistic and sustainable solutions' for dealing with complex problems concerning the biosphere, but warn that any success is dependent on changing our practices 'to allow nonhuman actors' to become part of the conversation.…”

“…However, even if the animal (cow) were set aside, evidence clearly shows that intensified animal production and concomitant disturbances in the ecosystem have altered the climatic trajectory of our planet (Nyberg and Wright 2020) in ways that may already be irreversible. For example, microbiomes and new forms of zoonotic disease, such as BSE and COVID19 have been enabled by intensive farming and supply chain irregularities (Smart and Smart 2017;Gasparin et al 2020). Worse, other zoonotic virus strains such as H5N1, or bird flu linked to chickens as intermediaries, arguably represent a bigger threat to homosapiens and 'civilization as we know it' (Greger 2020) than anything else in history.…”

“…While animal oppression has a long history (Forkasiewicz 2014, p. 50), the intensification of animal exploitation since the mid-twentieth century has been described as the great acceleration (Steffen et al 2007) for we currently kill more than 150 billion nonhuman animals for the purpose of human consumption (Cole and Stewart 2016). However, a growing literature addresses some of the self-defeating and dangerous consequences of our anthropocentric organising practices that go well beyond the prevailing extent of animal suffering (Deckers 2016), as research has shown that our animal-related actions contribute significantly to global warming (Nyberg and Wright 2020), zoonotic diseases and the emergence of pandemics (Smart and Smart 2017;Gasparin et al 2020). A recent report by the United Nations Environmental agency on the likely causes of the COVID19 pandemic named seven 'human-mediated disease drivers' (2020, p. 7), of which four involved human-animal relations: increased human demand for animal protein; unsuitable agricultural intensification; increased use and exploitation of wildlife; and the changes in food supply.…”

“…A recent report by the United Nations Environmental agency on the likely causes of the COVID19 pandemic named seven 'human-mediated disease drivers' (2020, p. 7), of which four involved human-animal relations: increased human demand for animal protein; unsuitable agricultural intensification; increased use and exploitation of wildlife; and the changes in food supply. While not the main focus of this article, it is argued that the entangled nature of the biosphere (Greger 2020) also tends to be minimised, or even ignored in much of the Management and Organisation studies literature (Nyberg and Wright 2020), business and management education continues to teach and promote human-centred economic models that are profoundly insensitive to the complex interdependencies between human action and the irreversible environmental challenges (Gasparin et al 2020). Serres (2013) regards the failure of humans to engage with all aspects of the host planet as crucial, for it enables (adiophorizes) the destructive practices that arguably render us the greatest of all parasites.…”