Maybe you can only be a good human in the Anthropocene by recognizing the extremities of how we have transformed ourselves in ways that we seem unable to control. Maybe the mission is to construct something new that can move inward and outward, embracing the damage we have done both to ourselves and everything else, while also learning to live in a world in which all beings are struggling to find out what it means to live well in this age. Maybe the generations alive now can do little beyond recognition of what has and may happen. Perhaps our value is in expanding our understanding of mind, intelligence, and consciousness, of all living things, of their being, and of the roles we could play. Could Arendt be a case of a doctor who diagnosed the condition but cannot see the things necessary for a cure? Could we be in the same role for the next generation and the ones after?
Maybe I am just speaking from age and fatigue, maybe cynicism and hypocrisy; it seems that way to me as a write this. I have learned a lot about all of this in the last few years but have done very poorly in implementing any of it. Still, I wonder if the question of what it is to be a good person in the Anthropocene does not come down to helping to broaden an understanding of what all beings need to live well in the times to come. Then again, maybe this comment is just some senseless rambling. I'll post it just in case it sparks some useful thought for you. That's about all any of us can ask of our words to others.
Surely the beginning is to accept responsibility, as you say both for the damage done and in admitting seriously that all living beings deserve to live well. Arendt is most definitely a superb diagnostician. She has some high level suggestions toward a cure, but she was writing 65 years ago. Prescient as she was, she could only see so much. Present generations can definitely take up this burden, to think, communicate, and act, personally and collectively.
The last thing I personally think we should do is to leave everything to large governmental, corporate, and institutional powers which... clearly aren't getting the job done (and are making everything worse). To keep hoping "they" and not WE will make the necessary shifts in thought and action is to shirk responsibility.
I appreciate your call to construct something new. I'm not sure if Arendt's comprehensive plan for vita activa and vita contemplativa, even if we could restore it, is the right way to go. She's put her finger on a lot of what is going on with us as humans. We need new conditions of possibility.
Another outstanding piece, Tracy. Thanks for taking the time & effort to write and share it. And now, after that well-deserved & genuine compliment, a bone to pick with you. :)
“The last thing I personally think we should do is to leave everything to large governmental, corporate, and institutional powers which... clearly aren't getting the job done (and are making everything worse). To keep hoping “they” and not WE will make the necessary shifts in thought and action is to shirk responsibility.”
The above statement is, I contend, too Arendtian and too Federalist! To wit, the Founders abhorred faction and “party,” but parties began--ex officio & extra-constitutionally--in the Washington administration. We can't wish them away. We humans are “groupish” (Jon Haidt), and party is a manifestation of our groupishness just as much as our predilection to support a certain sports team. (Go Hawks!).
And in dissing the role of electoral politics and government in addressing the role of climate change & environmental degradation, you're too close to Arendt. Arendt rarely wrote about the role of democratic governments and the adoption and implementation of policies. In short, she rarely wrote about “political-political theory,” the ins and outs of--yes--party politics, elections, intra-governmental roles and conflicts, etc. (She did this re totalitarianism, but about electoral democracies? Not so much.)
I hear and read people talking about what “we” can do about climate change, and this usually focuses on the individual or family level. The honest answer is, “not much.” Not much at all. To have an effect, WE have to ACT in concert--or in Arendtian terms--we have to act POLITICALLY. And since government is the business side of politics--the way in which political decisions are implemented and enforced--efforts to effect a meaningful difference in our political economy to deal with climate change, etc., must involve the very messy world of politics as manifest in government. Of course, democratic politics might prove too slow, in which case, the extreme changes in our lived environment that we're now experiencing will lead to people to resort to violence and authoritarianism in an effort to escape their plight.
N.B. One major party platform mentions climate 147 times. The other? -0-, nada, rein, zilch, nil, nimic, zip, naught, etc. There is political work to be done! Political actions needed!
Thanks for reading and for the encouragement. It was a hard post to write.
And thanks for picking a bone! :) You are always welcome to.
You make many good points about that paragraph in my reply to Guy. It was born, probably, more from my libertarian (and generally independent and small/local-preferences for politics) as much or more than from any adherence to Arendtian principles. But also, I just think the empirical evidence for BIG anything doing anything well is lacking.
That said, yes, of course, humans are groupish beings. True to Arendt on plurality and action and pleading for genuine public spaces in which to enact a particular vision of excellence in politics (clearly not what we have today!), we certainly need to do collective action bigger than the family.
I do think there are lots of options between the family and the UN or the US Democratic version of political party, big national government, big administrative state. (The new Republicans may not be much better, since they're now abandoning small gov't principles.) I'd be happy to discuss anything in the extensive middle zone of groupishness! (Libertarians are too individualistic, and too libertine, for my tastes, frankly.)
Simply put, I'm for small anti-coercive collectivities, gathered around common causes, with lots of diversity (plurality) in the mix. The Forward Party catches my eye as problem-solving, local-focused, diverse, and rallying around neutral problems political reform, like rank-choiced voting, open primaries, etc. I would add things like citizen's assemblies, more civil society ( a la Putnam, Bowling Alone), even old Bush Sr's "thousand points of light," which never seemed to go anywhere.
Agreed, that desperation over climate change or other impending apocalypses (seen as such) will breed vexation with democracy. The fearful (as per Collingwood!) will resort to violence and authoritarianism. Powerlessness and resentment breed anger and vulnerability to demagogues, and we're already in the midst of that.
The way the American political system is constituted for now, we have to have actions at both ends and all across the spectrum from small community associations to the federal government. I don't think it works to be big government or small government. Things are too dire for me right now to be focusing on, small parties.
The situation is hopeless, and you simply have to function without hope. Maybe that is actually what being a good person in the Anthropocene means.
Live without hope... You sound like my Gabi, and so many young people. She copes by getting busy on a personal level (https://livesusty.com/).
There's a guy in my Arendt class who thinks she was basically a pessimist with little hope. But she does ground hope in action, natality, promise-keeping, and forgiveness -- maybe also in the kinds of institutions set up by the American founders as a federalist system, in which (at least in theory, and somewhat in practice) there are political spaces, plurality, and a somewhat stable "world." I think she was hopeful about America. But that was then. It's on us now!
This discussion right here, amongst ourselves, has got to be somewhat hopeful. I hope! You are not alone. :)
Maybe you can only be a good human in the Anthropocene by recognizing the extremities of how we have transformed ourselves in ways that we seem unable to control. Maybe the mission is to construct something new that can move inward and outward, embracing the damage we have done both to ourselves and everything else, while also learning to live in a world in which all beings are struggling to find out what it means to live well in this age. Maybe the generations alive now can do little beyond recognition of what has and may happen. Perhaps our value is in expanding our understanding of mind, intelligence, and consciousness, of all living things, of their being, and of the roles we could play. Could Arendt be a case of a doctor who diagnosed the condition but cannot see the things necessary for a cure? Could we be in the same role for the next generation and the ones after?
Maybe I am just speaking from age and fatigue, maybe cynicism and hypocrisy; it seems that way to me as a write this. I have learned a lot about all of this in the last few years but have done very poorly in implementing any of it. Still, I wonder if the question of what it is to be a good person in the Anthropocene does not come down to helping to broaden an understanding of what all beings need to live well in the times to come. Then again, maybe this comment is just some senseless rambling. I'll post it just in case it sparks some useful thought for you. That's about all any of us can ask of our words to others.
Surely the beginning is to accept responsibility, as you say both for the damage done and in admitting seriously that all living beings deserve to live well. Arendt is most definitely a superb diagnostician. She has some high level suggestions toward a cure, but she was writing 65 years ago. Prescient as she was, she could only see so much. Present generations can definitely take up this burden, to think, communicate, and act, personally and collectively.
The last thing I personally think we should do is to leave everything to large governmental, corporate, and institutional powers which... clearly aren't getting the job done (and are making everything worse). To keep hoping "they" and not WE will make the necessary shifts in thought and action is to shirk responsibility.
I appreciate your call to construct something new. I'm not sure if Arendt's comprehensive plan for vita activa and vita contemplativa, even if we could restore it, is the right way to go. She's put her finger on a lot of what is going on with us as humans. We need new conditions of possibility.
Another outstanding piece, Tracy. Thanks for taking the time & effort to write and share it. And now, after that well-deserved & genuine compliment, a bone to pick with you. :)
“The last thing I personally think we should do is to leave everything to large governmental, corporate, and institutional powers which... clearly aren't getting the job done (and are making everything worse). To keep hoping “they” and not WE will make the necessary shifts in thought and action is to shirk responsibility.”
The above statement is, I contend, too Arendtian and too Federalist! To wit, the Founders abhorred faction and “party,” but parties began--ex officio & extra-constitutionally--in the Washington administration. We can't wish them away. We humans are “groupish” (Jon Haidt), and party is a manifestation of our groupishness just as much as our predilection to support a certain sports team. (Go Hawks!).
And in dissing the role of electoral politics and government in addressing the role of climate change & environmental degradation, you're too close to Arendt. Arendt rarely wrote about the role of democratic governments and the adoption and implementation of policies. In short, she rarely wrote about “political-political theory,” the ins and outs of--yes--party politics, elections, intra-governmental roles and conflicts, etc. (She did this re totalitarianism, but about electoral democracies? Not so much.)
I hear and read people talking about what “we” can do about climate change, and this usually focuses on the individual or family level. The honest answer is, “not much.” Not much at all. To have an effect, WE have to ACT in concert--or in Arendtian terms--we have to act POLITICALLY. And since government is the business side of politics--the way in which political decisions are implemented and enforced--efforts to effect a meaningful difference in our political economy to deal with climate change, etc., must involve the very messy world of politics as manifest in government. Of course, democratic politics might prove too slow, in which case, the extreme changes in our lived environment that we're now experiencing will lead to people to resort to violence and authoritarianism in an effort to escape their plight.
N.B. One major party platform mentions climate 147 times. The other? -0-, nada, rein, zilch, nil, nimic, zip, naught, etc. There is political work to be done! Political actions needed!
Thanks for reading and for the encouragement. It was a hard post to write.
And thanks for picking a bone! :) You are always welcome to.
You make many good points about that paragraph in my reply to Guy. It was born, probably, more from my libertarian (and generally independent and small/local-preferences for politics) as much or more than from any adherence to Arendtian principles. But also, I just think the empirical evidence for BIG anything doing anything well is lacking.
That said, yes, of course, humans are groupish beings. True to Arendt on plurality and action and pleading for genuine public spaces in which to enact a particular vision of excellence in politics (clearly not what we have today!), we certainly need to do collective action bigger than the family.
I do think there are lots of options between the family and the UN or the US Democratic version of political party, big national government, big administrative state. (The new Republicans may not be much better, since they're now abandoning small gov't principles.) I'd be happy to discuss anything in the extensive middle zone of groupishness! (Libertarians are too individualistic, and too libertine, for my tastes, frankly.)
Simply put, I'm for small anti-coercive collectivities, gathered around common causes, with lots of diversity (plurality) in the mix. The Forward Party catches my eye as problem-solving, local-focused, diverse, and rallying around neutral problems political reform, like rank-choiced voting, open primaries, etc. I would add things like citizen's assemblies, more civil society ( a la Putnam, Bowling Alone), even old Bush Sr's "thousand points of light," which never seemed to go anywhere.
Agreed, that desperation over climate change or other impending apocalypses (seen as such) will breed vexation with democracy. The fearful (as per Collingwood!) will resort to violence and authoritarianism. Powerlessness and resentment breed anger and vulnerability to demagogues, and we're already in the midst of that.
The way the American political system is constituted for now, we have to have actions at both ends and all across the spectrum from small community associations to the federal government. I don't think it works to be big government or small government. Things are too dire for me right now to be focusing on, small parties.
The situation is hopeless, and you simply have to function without hope. Maybe that is actually what being a good person in the Anthropocene means.
Live without hope... You sound like my Gabi, and so many young people. She copes by getting busy on a personal level (https://livesusty.com/).
There's a guy in my Arendt class who thinks she was basically a pessimist with little hope. But she does ground hope in action, natality, promise-keeping, and forgiveness -- maybe also in the kinds of institutions set up by the American founders as a federalist system, in which (at least in theory, and somewhat in practice) there are political spaces, plurality, and a somewhat stable "world." I think she was hopeful about America. But that was then. It's on us now!
This discussion right here, amongst ourselves, has got to be somewhat hopeful. I hope! You are not alone. :)