New Materialism and the Eco-Marxist Challenge

IF 1.2 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Tobias Skiveren
{"title":"New Materialism and the Eco-Marxist Challenge","authors":"Tobias Skiveren","doi":"10.1215/22011919-10422355","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In recent years, the critical vocabulary of the environmental humanities has shifted. After a decade burgeoning with new materialist explorations of intra-active entanglements and nonhuman vitalities, scholars are today becoming increasingly interested in the environmental effects of capitalism, its ecological rifts, fossil economy, and omnipresent wastescapes. Driving this shift is a reinvigoration of eco-Marxist thinking, which not only offers new focus points but also launches philosophical polemics against the field’s longstanding turn to matter. Facing these polemics, scholars in the environmental humanities are currently facing a difficult choice: should we opt for an “old” or a “new” materialism? This essay argues that this confrontation between new materialism and eco-Marxism pivots not on ontological differences, as is often assumed, but on diverging attitudes toward critical methodologies. It claims specifically that many of the recent polemics practice a kind of philosophical shadowboxing that blurs a more fundamental disagreement about the role and status of “critique.” Staging an encounter between Andreas Malm’s The Progress of This Storm (2018) and Jane Bennett’s Influx and Efflux (2020), the essay makes its case by demonstrating, first, how an attachment to critical methodologies drives eco-Marxists to polemicize against ontologies that, in fact, resemble their own. It then shows how new materialists advance such ontologies to supplement these critical methodologies with more affectively engaged modes of scholarship. By framing the debate in this way, the essay ultimately aims to push back against the methodological dogmatism of eco-Marxists who take critique to be the only legitimate mode of inquiry.","PeriodicalId":46497,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Humanities","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-10422355","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent years, the critical vocabulary of the environmental humanities has shifted. After a decade burgeoning with new materialist explorations of intra-active entanglements and nonhuman vitalities, scholars are today becoming increasingly interested in the environmental effects of capitalism, its ecological rifts, fossil economy, and omnipresent wastescapes. Driving this shift is a reinvigoration of eco-Marxist thinking, which not only offers new focus points but also launches philosophical polemics against the field’s longstanding turn to matter. Facing these polemics, scholars in the environmental humanities are currently facing a difficult choice: should we opt for an “old” or a “new” materialism? This essay argues that this confrontation between new materialism and eco-Marxism pivots not on ontological differences, as is often assumed, but on diverging attitudes toward critical methodologies. It claims specifically that many of the recent polemics practice a kind of philosophical shadowboxing that blurs a more fundamental disagreement about the role and status of “critique.” Staging an encounter between Andreas Malm’s The Progress of This Storm (2018) and Jane Bennett’s Influx and Efflux (2020), the essay makes its case by demonstrating, first, how an attachment to critical methodologies drives eco-Marxists to polemicize against ontologies that, in fact, resemble their own. It then shows how new materialists advance such ontologies to supplement these critical methodologies with more affectively engaged modes of scholarship. By framing the debate in this way, the essay ultimately aims to push back against the methodological dogmatism of eco-Marxists who take critique to be the only legitimate mode of inquiry.
新唯物主义与生态马克思主义的挑战
近年来,环境人文学科的批判性词汇发生了变化。十年来,随着唯物主义对内在纠缠和非人类生命的新探索,学者们对资本主义的环境影响、生态裂痕、化石经济和无处不在的垃圾景观越来越感兴趣。推动这一转变的是生态马克思主义思想的复兴,它不仅提供了新的焦点,还引发了对该领域长期转向物质的哲学争论。面对这些争论,环境人文学者目前面临着一个艰难的选择:我们应该选择“旧的”还是“新的”唯物主义?本文认为,新唯物主义和生态马克思主义之间的对抗并不像人们通常认为的那样,集中在本体论的差异上,而是集中在对批判方法论的不同态度上。它特别声称,最近的许多争论都是在实践一种哲学太极拳,模糊了关于“批判”的角色和地位的更根本的分歧。这篇文章以安德烈亚斯·马尔姆的《这场风暴的进展》(2018)和简·贝内特的《流入与流出》(2020)为背景,对批判性方法论的依恋如何驱使生态马克思主义者与事实上与他们自己相似的本体论展开争论。然后,它展示了新唯物主义者如何推进这种本体论,以更有效的学术模式来补充这些批判性方法论。通过以这种方式构建辩论,本文最终旨在反击生态马克思主义者的方法论教条主义,他们将批判视为唯一合法的探究模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental Humanities
Environmental Humanities HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
8.70%
发文量
32
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信