Utopianism in the Age of Capitalocene

Abstract

This article explores the social and political imagination of ‘the Anthropocene’ and the utopian counter images that can be derived from it. From the utopian studies perspective, I argue that the Anthropocene cannot provide sufficient societal alternatives for the current ecological predicament. This is due to the fact that the concept of Anthropocene relies too heavily on the image of abstract humanity to be able to offer real societal alternatives. It cannot name the social system we live in and, therefore, it cannot fundamentally challenge existing social arrangements. Based on utopian social theory, I conceptualize utopia as a counter image of the present motivated by a desire for better being. The contents and the politically transformative potentials of utopian counter-images depend on the conceptualization of the present itself. I contrast the utopian potentials of ‘the Anthropocene’ with that of ‘the Capitalocene’ which is more apt in outlining the social conditions of the present. Thus, the Capitalocene as a concept opens up more radical possibilities for imagining societal alternatives by conceptualizing the present socially.

Do you have a tree friend?—Human–tree relationships in Finland

“…Compared to findings about other relationships between humans and nonhumans, the human–tree relationships seem to be poorly compatible with any existing framework. Although relationships with trees may have some similarities with the practical human–forest relationship (Apajalahti et al., 2022; Halla et al., 2021; Ritter & Dauksta, 2013) or symbolic relationships with places (Jones & Cloke, 2002; Karjalainen, 2009), the relationships with trees appear to be more private and ambiguous. In contrast to interspecies relationships with nonhuman animals, trees are less responsive in the relationships, although they can be seen to have an agency of their own (Jones & Cloke, 2002).…”

re:TO: Pursuing Urban Re-Imaginaries Through an Affected Ontological Inquiry into the Capitalocene In Toronto

“…Thus, as it does not name the true crux of our current social conditions, the Anthropocene thesis is incapable of effectively challenging our current global socio-political matrix nor of offering actionable alternative ways of thinking or being (Demos, 2017;Haraway, 2016;Hawaray et. al, 2016;Lakkala, 2021).…”

“…'Anthropos' highlights an abstracted (Lakkala, 2021), ahistorical (Baer, 2017) and totalized (Demos, 2017) vision of humanity: the Anthropocene thesis suggests that all of humanity is simultaneously equally responsible for widespread ecocide that began with the Industrial revolution (Malm & Hornborg, 2014;Moore, 2017). Critics of the term highlight that this does not name the true sources of climate altering CO2 emissions, narrowed down to the fossil fuel companies responsible for 70% of emissions (CDP, 2017;Heede, 2019).…”

The routledge handbook of catalysts for a sustainable circular economy

“…First, utopias are preferable to existing society, based on values. Second, utopias criticise existing society (see Lakkala, 2020b). Third, the utopian societies that are described do not (yet) exist.…”