种植世:理解生态破坏与社会不平等之间联系的框架

Ennan Wu, Yichang Xu
{"title":"种植世:理解生态破坏与社会不平等之间联系的框架","authors":"Ennan Wu, Yichang Xu","doi":"10.1007/s10806-023-09919-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Anthropocene, as one of the core concepts currently used to understand and reflect on the relationships among humans, species, and planet, has received widespread attention and discussion in the global academic community. As one of the important alternative concepts to the Anthropocene, the term Plantationocene was first proposed by Haraway et al. in October 2014. Compared to the former, it reveals the fundamental characteristics of the modern era, and continues to enrich its theoretical connotations amidst rapid shifts in social concepts and practices. Tracing and sorting out the genealogy of this concept over less than a decade since its inception allows for a microhistorical study of conceptual history, revealing three key dimensions of its meaning: (i) a critique of the history of (post)colonialism and extractivism, (ii) although plantations are known worldwide for monocrop agriculture and have so-called keystone species, they are essentially a multispecies symbiotic system. From its inception, the concept of the Plantationocene inherently encompasses the idea of “multispecies entanglement and multispecies politics,“ and (iii) a metaphor for structural power relations from real word to digital world. Research indicates that the Plantationocene has become a framework for understanding the connection between ecological destruction and social inequality. In the game of global ecological politics and academic power relationships in the post-humanist era, it requires us to pay attention not only to the relationships among humans but also those among multispecies to build a more just and sustainable society in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":501152,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Plantationocene: A Framework For Understanding the Links Between Ecological Destruction and Social Inequalities\",\"authors\":\"Ennan Wu, Yichang Xu\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10806-023-09919-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The Anthropocene, as one of the core concepts currently used to understand and reflect on the relationships among humans, species, and planet, has received widespread attention and discussion in the global academic community. As one of the important alternative concepts to the Anthropocene, the term Plantationocene was first proposed by Haraway et al. in October 2014. Compared to the former, it reveals the fundamental characteristics of the modern era, and continues to enrich its theoretical connotations amidst rapid shifts in social concepts and practices. Tracing and sorting out the genealogy of this concept over less than a decade since its inception allows for a microhistorical study of conceptual history, revealing three key dimensions of its meaning: (i) a critique of the history of (post)colonialism and extractivism, (ii) although plantations are known worldwide for monocrop agriculture and have so-called keystone species, they are essentially a multispecies symbiotic system. From its inception, the concept of the Plantationocene inherently encompasses the idea of “multispecies entanglement and multispecies politics,“ and (iii) a metaphor for structural power relations from real word to digital world. Research indicates that the Plantationocene has become a framework for understanding the connection between ecological destruction and social inequality. In the game of global ecological politics and academic power relationships in the post-humanist era, it requires us to pay attention not only to the relationships among humans but also those among multispecies to build a more just and sustainable society in the future.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501152,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-023-09919-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-023-09919-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人类世作为目前用来理解和反思人类、物种和地球之间关系的核心概念之一,受到了全球学术界的广泛关注和讨论。作为 "人类世 "的重要替代概念之一,"种植世"(Plantationocene)一词由哈拉维等人于2014年10月首次提出。与前者相比,它揭示了现代的基本特征,并在社会观念和实践的快速转变中不断丰富其理论内涵。追溯和梳理这一概念诞生以来不到十年的谱系,可以对概念史进行微观历史研究,揭示其内涵的三个关键维度:(i) 对(后)殖民主义和采掘主义历史的批判;(ii) 尽管种植园以单一作物农业闻名于世,并拥有所谓的关键物种,但其本质上是一个多物种共生系统。种植园新世 "的概念从一开始就包含了 "多物种纠缠和多物种政治 "的思想,(iii) 是对从现实世界到数字世界的结构性权力关系的一种隐喻。研究表明,种植世已成为理解生态破坏与社会不平等之间联系的框架。在后人文主义时代全球生态政治与学术权力关系的博弈中,需要我们不仅关注人与人之间的关系,也要关注多物种之间的关系,从而在未来建立一个更加公正和可持续发展的社会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Plantationocene: A Framework For Understanding the Links Between Ecological Destruction and Social Inequalities

The Anthropocene, as one of the core concepts currently used to understand and reflect on the relationships among humans, species, and planet, has received widespread attention and discussion in the global academic community. As one of the important alternative concepts to the Anthropocene, the term Plantationocene was first proposed by Haraway et al. in October 2014. Compared to the former, it reveals the fundamental characteristics of the modern era, and continues to enrich its theoretical connotations amidst rapid shifts in social concepts and practices. Tracing and sorting out the genealogy of this concept over less than a decade since its inception allows for a microhistorical study of conceptual history, revealing three key dimensions of its meaning: (i) a critique of the history of (post)colonialism and extractivism, (ii) although plantations are known worldwide for monocrop agriculture and have so-called keystone species, they are essentially a multispecies symbiotic system. From its inception, the concept of the Plantationocene inherently encompasses the idea of “multispecies entanglement and multispecies politics,“ and (iii) a metaphor for structural power relations from real word to digital world. Research indicates that the Plantationocene has become a framework for understanding the connection between ecological destruction and social inequality. In the game of global ecological politics and academic power relationships in the post-humanist era, it requires us to pay attention not only to the relationships among humans but also those among multispecies to build a more just and sustainable society in the future.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Three Injustices of Adaptation Finance - A Relational Egalitarian Analysis Interspecies Justice within a Normative Sustainable Development Framework–Animal-Friendly Energy Systems as a Test Case Value-Able Valuers: Anthropogenic Climate Change and Expanding Community to the “Radically Other” When Cows Become Heroes: The Construction of Animal Subjectivity and Environmental Sustainability in the Swedish Organic food Sector Correction: Farming non-typical sentient species: ethical framework requires passing a high bar
×
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