DISCIPLINING THE ANTHROPOCENE

IF 1.1 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY History and Theory Pub Date : 2022-08-06 DOI:10.1111/hith.12267
Ian Hesketh
{"title":"DISCIPLINING THE ANTHROPOCENE","authors":"Ian Hesketh","doi":"10.1111/hith.12267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this review essay, I examine Julia Adeney Thomas, Mark Williams, and Jan Zalasiewicz's <i>The Anthropocene: A Multidisciplinary Approach</i>. As indicated by the book's subtitle, the authors stress the necessity of approaching the Anthropocene from a multidisciplinary perspective as opposed to an interdisciplinary one. I consider how the authors do this by analyzing the different disciplinary approaches they adopt from fields ranging from geology and Earth system science to anthropology and history. What will become clear is that, rather than seeking to synthesize the relevant knowledge that is produced by these disciplines, the authors envision the Anthropocene as an analytical lens through which multiple forms of knowledge can be produced. Given the disparate timescales and complex phenomena that are implied by the Anthropocene, this multidisciplinary approach avoids many of the epistemic problems that have beset certain attempts to situate the Anthropocene within a grand synthetic framework that is governed by a singular theory and linear historical narrative. In addition to showing that the Anthropocene must be viewed from a range of different disciplinary perspectives in order to be understood, the book illustrates how it is possible to bring into conversation diverse forms of knowledge from the sciences and the humanities without undermining the disciplinary differences and methods that produced those forms of knowledge in the first place.</p>","PeriodicalId":47473,"journal":{"name":"History and Theory","volume":"61 3","pages":"482-491"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hith.12267","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hith.12267","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this review essay, I examine Julia Adeney Thomas, Mark Williams, and Jan Zalasiewicz's The Anthropocene: A Multidisciplinary Approach. As indicated by the book's subtitle, the authors stress the necessity of approaching the Anthropocene from a multidisciplinary perspective as opposed to an interdisciplinary one. I consider how the authors do this by analyzing the different disciplinary approaches they adopt from fields ranging from geology and Earth system science to anthropology and history. What will become clear is that, rather than seeking to synthesize the relevant knowledge that is produced by these disciplines, the authors envision the Anthropocene as an analytical lens through which multiple forms of knowledge can be produced. Given the disparate timescales and complex phenomena that are implied by the Anthropocene, this multidisciplinary approach avoids many of the epistemic problems that have beset certain attempts to situate the Anthropocene within a grand synthetic framework that is governed by a singular theory and linear historical narrative. In addition to showing that the Anthropocene must be viewed from a range of different disciplinary perspectives in order to be understood, the book illustrates how it is possible to bring into conversation diverse forms of knowledge from the sciences and the humanities without undermining the disciplinary differences and methods that produced those forms of knowledge in the first place.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
规训人类新世
在这篇评论文章中,我研究了Julia Adeney Thomas, Mark Williams和Jan Zalasiewicz的《人类世:多学科方法》。正如书的副标题所示,作者强调了从多学科的角度来研究人类世的必要性,而不是从跨学科的角度来研究。我通过分析作者从地质学和地球系统科学到人类学和历史学等领域采用的不同学科方法来考虑作者是如何做到这一点的。将变得清晰的是,作者不是寻求综合这些学科产生的相关知识,而是将人类世设想为一个分析透镜,通过它可以产生多种形式的知识。考虑到人类世所隐含的不同的时间尺度和复杂的现象,这种多学科的方法避免了许多认知问题,这些问题一直困扰着某些试图将人类世置于一个由单一理论和线性历史叙事控制的大综合框架内的尝试。除了表明人类世必须从一系列不同学科的角度来看待才能被理解之外,这本书还说明了如何在不破坏产生这些知识形式的学科差异和方法的前提下,将科学和人文学科的各种知识形式引入对话。
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 去求助
来源期刊
History and Theory
History and Theory Multiple-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: History and Theory leads the way in exploring the nature of history. Prominent international thinkers contribute their reflections in the following areas: critical philosophy of history, speculative philosophy of history, historiography, history of historiography, historical methodology, critical theory, and time and culture. Related disciplines are also covered within the journal, including interactions between history and the natural and social sciences, the humanities, and psychology.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information HOW SHOULD HISTORIANS EMPATHIZE? “TESTIMONY STOPS WHERE HISTORY BEGINS”: UNDERSTANDING AND ETHICS IN RELATION TO HISTORICAL AND PRACTICAL PASTS A HOUSE WITH EXPOSED BEAMS: INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING AND HISTORIANS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES AS SCHOLAR-TEACHERS OPEN LETTERS IN CLOSED SOCIETIES: THE VALUES OF HISTORIANS UNDER ATTACK
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1