Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Capitalism
Dipesh Chakrabarty
University of Chicago
Abstract
Discussion of global climate change is shaped by the intellectual categories developed
to address capitalism and globalization. Yet climate change is only one manifestation
of humanity’s varied and accelerating impact on the Earth System. The common
predicament that may be anticipated in the Anthropocene raises difficult questions
of distributive justice – between rich and poor, developed and developing countries,
the living and the yet unborn, and even the human and the non-human – and may
pose a challenge to the categories on which our traditions of political thought are
based. Awareness of the Anthropocene encourages us to think of humans on differ-
ent scales and in different contexts – as parts of a global capitalist system and as
members of a now-dominant species – although the debate is, for now, still struc-
tured by the experiences and concepts of the developed world.
Keywords
Anthropocene, capitalism, climate change, global warming, humanity, politics, species,
species thinking
economy, always knew what the ultimate cause of it all was! What I wish
to do in this brief statement is go over some of the narratives that the
findings of natural or biological sciences make possible. It is not my aim
in this short essay to resolve the tensions I point to in our narratives of
climate change.
Other animals at the top of the pyramid, such as lions and sharks,
evolved into that position very gradually, over millions of years.
This enables the ecosystem to develop checks and balances that
prevent lions and sharks from wreaking too much havoc. As the
lions became deadlier, so gazelles evolved to run faster, hyenas to
cooperate better, and rhinoceroses to be more bad-tempered. In
contrast, humankind ascended to the top so quickly that the eco-
system was not given time to adjust. (2015: 11–12)
4 Theory, Culture & Society 0(0)
disposal to deal with disasters and buy their way to relative safety. It is
possible that the lifeboat metaphor was too cryptic (and it clearly mis-
fired for some readers) but my point was that climate change, potentially,
has to do with changes in the boundary conditions needed for the sus-
tenance of human and many other forms of life. Climate scientists have
pointed out that there is a temperature zone within which humans find it
easy to survive. Runaway global warming could, theoretically, warm up
the planet to a point where humans would find survival difficult. The
rich, for all their money, for example, would not find it easy to live in a
world whose supply of oxygen had dried up; even they are subject to
biological processes! And, to stay with the polemics for a moment, it
could be argued that even the super-rich need functioning markets and
technological systems to continue to enjoy the benefits of their wealth
and investments. In the extreme – and let us hope, unlikely – scenario of
runaway global warming, the descendants of the super-rich will find it
difficult to hold on to their privileges.
Consider also this additional argument: if the rich could simply buy
their way out of this crisis and only the poor suffered, why would the rich
of the rich nations do anything about global warming unless the poor of
the world (including the poor of the rich nations) were powerful enough to
force them to act? Such power on the part of the poor is clearly not in
evidence. Nor were the rich nations ever known for their altruism. A
better case for rich nations and classes to act on climate change, it
seems to me, is couched in terms of their enlightened self-interest. The
science of global warming allows us to do so by precisely making the point
that, for all its differential impact, it is a crisis for the rich and their des-
cendants as well – as Hansen’s popular book amply makes clear. Besides,
some rich nations like Australia, because of their geographical location,
lie very exposed to the likely negative impacts of climate change. So yes, a
politics of even broader solidarity than simply solidarity of the poor is
called for, though I agree that this is by no means easy to achieve.
All these considerations only underline how difficult it is to operation-
alize the word ‘common’ in the expression ‘common but differentiated
responsibility’ that is often used as a guideline for climate change politics.
It is only when placing the problem of planetary climate change in a
framework that is larger than the spatio-temporal scales involved in
the analysis of capitalism or globalization that we begin to see in what
sense climate change may be – if not a common responsibility – a
common predicament. The following sections are an attempt to expand
the overall argument further in this latter direction.
given timetable and a specified carbon budget, we can also point to what
might constitute ‘the politics of climate change’, for example the just
distribution of the carbon budget between developed and emergent
economies and poorer or more immediately threatened nations. A very
difficult question to ponder, however, is whether or not the climate crisis
– when seen as symptomatic of humanity’s ecological overshoot – also
signals the first glimpse we might have of a possible limit to our very
human-centered thinking about justice, and thus to our political thought
as well. Global warming accentuates the planetary tendency towards
human-driven extinction of many other species, with some scientists sug-
gesting that the planet may have already entered the beginnings of a long
(in human terms) Great Extinction event (Ceballos et al., 2015).
Anthropogenic climate change thus produces a crisis in the distribution
of natural reproductive life on the planet. But our political and justice-
related thinking remains very human-focused. We still do not know how
to think conceptually – politically or in accordance with theories of just-
ice – about justice towards non-human forms of life, not to speak of the
inanimate world. Thinkers of animal rights have extended questions of
justice towards some animals, but their theories are limited by strict
requirements relating to the threshold of sentience in animals. Besides,
some philosophers also argue that, whatever the practical value of a
category such as life in biology, ‘life as such’ cannot be a strict philo-
sophical category. Yet we cannot think ‘extinction’ without using the
category ‘life’, however difficult it may be to define it. The really difficult
issue that arises when scholars write about humans being stewards of the
planet is what our relationship, conceptually, would be to bacteria and
viruses, given that many of them are not friendly to the human form of
life (while many are). Yet it is undeniable that the natural history of
species life on this planet involves the histories and activities of bacteria
and viruses.
So while I agree that politics as we know it continues and will continue
into the foreseeable future, and that there is no politics of the
Anthropocene as such (but much politics about the label
‘Anthropocene’, as we know!), a deepening of the climate crisis and of
the ecological overshoot of which it is a symptom may indeed lead us to
rethink the (European) tradition of political thought that has, since the
17th century and thanks to European expansion, become everybody’s
inheritance today. Nigel Clark makes a similar point from a somewhat
different point of view:
Species Thinking
Now back to the question of whether or not we should think of humans
through the biological category of ‘species’, alongside other historical
categories such as ‘capitalism’, as we think through this crisis. Malm
and Hornborg take the position that while ‘the Anthropocene’ might
effectively represent a possible polar-bear point of view – since they,
the bears, might want to know ‘what species is wreaking such havoc
on their habitats’, ‘(w)ithin the human kingdom. . . species-thinking on
climate change is conducive to mystification and political paralysis’
(2014: 67). Let me say why I disagree. Can the story of ecological over-
shoot by humans be thought of simply as the story of modernization and
its inherent inequalities and also not as the story of a particular species –
Homo sapiens – coming to dominate the biosphere to such an extent that
its own existence is now challenged? Think of the story as Harari tells it.
Today, with their consumption, numbers, technology and so on, humans
– yes, all humans, rich and poor – put pressure on the biosphere (the rich
and poor do it in different ways and for different reasons) and disturb
what I called above the distribution of life on the planet. Harari puts the
point well:
Humankind ascended to the top [of the food chain] so quickly that
the ecosystem was not given time to adjust. Moreover, humans
themselves failed to adjust. Most top predators of the planet are
majestic creatures. Millions of years of domination have filled them
with self-confidence. Sapiens by contrast is more like a banana
republic dictator. Having so recently been one of the underdogs
of the savannah, we are full of fears and anxieties over our pos-
ition . . . (2015: 11–12)
Notes
In preparing this piece, I have drawn and elaborated on – and also
departed from – my essay ‘Whose Anthropocene? A Response’
(2016b). Thanks are due to anonymous referees of Theory, Culture &
Society for their helpful criticisms.
1. ‘If global warming and a sixth extinction take place in the next couple of
centuries, then an epoch will seem too low a category in the hierarchy [of the
geological timetable].’ Personal communication with Professor Jan
Zalasiewicz, 30 September 2015.
2. I am grateful to Professor Zalasiewicz for sharing this paper with me.
3. See the detailed and excellent discussion in Incropera (2016).
4. For more on this point, see my essay ‘Climate and Capital: On Conjoined
Histories’ (Chakrabarty, 2014).
5. I owe this reference to Julia Adeny Thomas.
References
Archer D (2009) The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000
Years of the Earth’s Climate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Barnosky A, Garcı́a A, Pringle RM and Palmer TM
(2015) Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth
mass extinction. Science Advances 1(5): 1–5.
Chakrabarty D (2009) The climate of history: Four theses. Critical Inquiry 35(2):
197–222.
Chakrabarty D (2014) Climate and capital: On conjoined histories. Critical
Inquiry 41(1): 1–23.
Chakrabarty D (2016a) The human significance of the Anthropocene.
In: Latour B (ed) Reset Modernity! Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 189–199.
Chakrabarty D (2016b) Whose Anthropocene? A response. In: Lekan T and
Emmett R (eds) Whose Anthropocene? Revisiting After Nature: Politics and
Practice in Dipesh Chakrabarty’s Four Theses: Special Issue of RCC
Perspectives: Transformations in Environment and Society. Munich: Rachel
Carson Center, pp. 103–113.
Clark N (2014) Geo-politics and the disaster of the Anthropocene. Sociological
Review 62(S1): 27–28.
Hansen J (2009) Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming
Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity. London:
Bloomsbury Press.
Harari YN (2015) Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. New York: Harper
Collins.
Incropera FP (2016) Climate Change: A Wicked Problem – Complexity and
Uncertainty at the Intersection of Science, Economics, Politics, and Human
Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Malm A and Hornborg A (2014) The geology of mankind? A critique of the
Anthropocene narrative. Anthropocene Review 1(1): 62–69.
Oreskes N (2007) The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know
we are not wrong? In: Demento JFC and Doughman P (eds) Climate Change:
Chakrabarty 13
What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Sekerci Y and Petrovskii S (2015) Mathematical modelling of plankton–oxygen
dynamics under the climate change. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 77(12):
2325–2353.
University of Leicester Press Office (2015) Failing phytoplankton, failing
oxygen: Global warming disaster could suffocate life on planet Earth.
Science Daily press releases, 1 December.
Zalasiewicz J (2015) The geology behind the Anthropocene (typescript).
This article is part of the Theory, Culture & Society special issue on
‘Geosocial Formations and the Anthropocene’, edited by Nigel Clark and
Kathryn Yusoff.