Vulnerability, Green Political

Theory and
the ‘Human Condition’ in the
Anthropocene
 The ‘Silence of the Limbs’ in Western
Political Theory

Lack of analysis to vulnerability within western political theory, especially liberalism and
orthodox economic thinking (exception, green and feminist thinking, Alastair MacIntyre)

Incomplete view of the human being and human condition (ideal of independence,
autonomy etc.) , since vulnerability is constitutive of what it means to be human

Vulnerability also related to dependence and corporeality

Enlightenment – prioritising invulnerability and independence from others (nature,

fellow humans, the state)

Vulnerability thus speaks to that which modernity seeks to sequester: our dependence on
one another, our frailty: our embodiedness and ecological embeddedness

And a flourishing human life is one which acknowledges our dependence, vulnerability
and related experiences of death, suffering and pain
 Myths and Dangers of Invulnerability

Dominance of the ‘myth’ of the independent ‘man’ as the model of what it means
to be a free human being

Completely neglects issues of dependence, care, familial relations, children, food

i.e. all deemed ‘private sphere’ not part of ‘ideal’ free public sphere of ‘citizen’

In the ‘Western imaginary’ (cultural and normative) vulnerability signifies not just
something to be overcome, but also something which was dominant at an earlier
stage of human evolution and history. It is an unwelcome ‘reminder’, representing
an earlier stage of human evolution, and also a reminder of our animal character.

‘Achilles Lance’ and techno-optimism – ‘anthropocene dreams’ of terraforming

geoengineering the planet as response to climate change
Myth of control and invulnerability, independence from the non-human world

The danger of the ‘arrogance of humanism’

 Vulnerability, Harm and Social Justice in the
Anthropocene

Neither vulnerability nor the harm that arises from it, nor
indeed the resilience in coping with or mitigating harm or
injury, are equally distributed

Injustice, rights violations, inequalities – should be at the heart

of ethical responses to the anthropocene

Yet debates about the anthropocene dominated by discourses of

technological control (orientated around improving human
invulnerability)

Part of the dominant Western cultural narrative of ‘progress’ –

overcoming of dependence and increases in invulnerability,
management and control
 Flourishing and Vulnerability in the
Anthropocene

Different view of the good life – sustainability and vulnerability (quality of

relations, meaningful free time, ‘good life’ versus ‘goods life’ etc)

But also, provocatively – integration of pain, suffering and death into a

good, flourishing human life

De-sequestering those vulnerable/dependent dimensions of the human

experience modernity hides, denies, occludes

Acknowledging and integrating vulnerability/ dependence – more

accurate view of the human condition, and a fortiori, over a full life
course – birth to death

Also a more creative ethical and political position for navigating the
human condition in the anthropocene