Reimagining Environmental Sciences: Challenging Anthropocentric Bias through Stengers’ Arguments

Introduction

The advent of the Anthropocene has heightened humanity’s sense of urgency in addressing the unfolding environmental crises. This pressing concern has led to a growing body of literature that critiques anthropocentric bias within environmental sciences, particularly climate science (Crutzen & Stoermer, 2000; Steffen et al., 2007). One such thinker who has significantly challenged traditional views on anthropocentrism is the Belgian philosopher Isabelle Stengers. Through her unique blend of philosophy and natural sciences, she advocates for a radical rethinking of how humans perceive their relationship with nature (Stengers, 2011a; Stengers, 2011b). This paper examines how Stengers’ arguments challenge anthropocentric bias in environmental sciences by critically engaging with her works and juxtaposing them against prominent thinkers who uphold anthropocentrism. The study aims to highlight the need for a philosophical recentering that acknowledges the intrinsic value of all living entities within the Earth system.

Background

The Anthropocene, characterized by human-induced environmental transformations at an unprecedented scale, has led scholars to question whether traditional anthropocentric views can still offer viable solutions to contemporary ecological challenges (Crutzen & Stoermer, 2000; Steffen et al., 2007). Anthropocentrism refers to the belief that humans are superior and central to nature, with everything existing for human benefit (Salleh, 2014). While anthropocentrism has been crucial in advancing scientific knowledge and technological innovation, it has also led to unsustainable exploitation of natural resources and environmental degradation.

In recent years, a growing number of scholars have called for alternative ways of thinking about the relationship between humans and nature. Isabelle Stengers, a Belgian philosopher and historian of science, is one such thinker who critiques anthropocentrism within environmental sciences (Stengers, 2011a; Stengers, 2011b). Drawing from her background in chemistry and philosophy, she argues for an ecology of practices that acknowledges the intrinsic value of all living entities while challenging traditional dichotomies between nature and culture. Her ideas resonate with other prominent thinkers such as Bruno Latour and Timothy Morton who also challenge anthropocentric views (Latour, 2004; Morton, 2010).

Stengers’ Arguments Against Anthropocentrism

Stengers offers several compelling arguments against traditional anthropocentrism within environmental sciences. First, she critiques the notion of human exceptionalism that underpins many scientific disciplines including biology, ecology, and climate science (Stengers, 2011a). According to her, this perspective tends to position humans as separate from and superior to other living entities, thereby justifying their domination over nature. Stengers contends that such a view is not only ethically problematic but also hampers our ability to understand the complexity of ecological systems.

Second, Stengers argues for an ecology of practices that emphasizes interconnectedness among diverse forms of life (Stengers, 2011b). This perspective challenges conventional views on nature as a static object separate from human activities. Instead, it sees nature as constantly changing through interactions between humans and non-humans within specific local contexts. By foregrounding these connections, Stengers’ ecology of practices seeks to create more sustainable forms of coexistence among different species.

Third, Stengers critiques the dominant narrative in climate science that portrays anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions as the primary cause of global warming (Stengers, 2018). While acknowledging humans’ role in exacerbating climate change, she calls for greater attention to be paid to geological processes such as volcanic eruptions and plate tectonics. According to her, these phenomena have much larger impacts on Earth’s climate system than previously thought. By doing so, Stengers aims to challenge anthropocentric biases that prioritize human actions over natural forces.

Finally, Stengers advocates for a political approach to environmental issues that prioritizes dialogue among various stakeholders rather than imposing top-down solutions (Stengers, 2018). She argues that such an approach acknowledges the plurality of perspectives and values involved in addressing ecological challenges. In doing so, it opens up space for democratic deliberation and negotiation towards finding common ground.

Comparison with Prominent Thinkers

Stengers’ arguments resonate with other prominent thinkers who critique anthropocentrism within environmental sciences. For instance, Bruno Latour argues against the nature-culture dichotomy by emphasizing hybridity between human and non-human actors (Latour, 2004). He sees this entanglement as necessary for understanding how ecological systems function holistically. Similarly, Timothy Morton critiques human exceptionalism by positing an ecology of hyperobjects such as climate change that challenge traditional spatiotemporal boundaries (Morton, 2010).

However, Stengers differs from these thinkers in several ways. First, while Latour and Morton focus primarily on the philosophical implications of their arguments, Stengers engages directly with scientific practices themselves. Second, unlike Morton who tends to emphasize abstract concepts such as hyperobjects, Stengers prioritizes practical engagement with ecological issues through her notion of an ecology of practices.

Implications for Climate Science

Stengers’ critiques have important implications for climate science. Firstly, they challenge the dominance of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions as the primary cause of global warming (Stengers, 2018). By emphasizing geological processes such as volcanic eruptions and plate tectonics that have much larger impacts on Earth’s climate system than previously thought, Stengers calls for a more nuanced understanding of the factors driving climate change. This could lead to new research directions that incorporate these natural forces into existing models.

Secondly, her advocacy for an ecology of practices has implications for how scientists engage with ecological issues (Stengers, 2011b). Rather than treating nature as an object separate from human activities, Stengers encourages researchers to consider their own role in shaping the environment. This perspective could lead to more reflexive and responsible scientific practices that take into account the broader social and political contexts within which research is conducted.

Finally, her call for dialogue among stakeholders resonates with recent calls for greater public engagement in climate science (Stilgoe et al., 2014). By prioritizing democratic deliberation and negotiation towards finding common ground, Stengers’ arguments challenge traditional top-down approaches to addressing environmental challenges. This could lead to more inclusive decision-making processes that take into account diverse perspectives and values.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Isabelle Stengers offers compelling critiques against anthropocentrism within environmental sciences, particularly climate science. Through her unique blend of philosophy and natural sciences, she advocates for an ecology of practices that acknowledges the intrinsic value of all living entities while challenging traditional dichotomies between nature and culture. Her ideas resonate with other prominent thinkers such as Bruno Latour and Timothy Morton who also challenge anthropocentric views.

Stengers’ arguments have important implications for climate science by calling for a more nuanced understanding of the factors driving climate change, encouraging researchers to consider their own role in shaping the environment, and prioritizing democratic deliberation and negotiation towards finding common ground. By doing so, she opens up space for new research directions that incorporate natural forces into existing models while fostering more reflexive and responsible scientific practices.

References

Crutzen, P. J., & Stoermer, E. F. (2000). The “Anthropocene”. Global Change Newsletter, 41, 17-18.

Latour, B. (2004). Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Harvard University Press.

Morton, T. (2010). The Ecological Thought. Harvard University Press.

Salleh, A. (2014). Eco-Sufficiency and Global Justice: Women Write Political Ecology. Pluto Press.

Stengers, I. (2011a). Thinking with Whitehead: A Free and Wild Creation of Concepts. Harvard University Press.

Stengers, I. (2011b). Another Science Is Possible: A Cosmopolitical Proposal. Open Humanities Press.

Stengers, I. (2018). In Catastrophic Times: Resisting the Coming Barbarism. Open Humanities Press.

Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2014). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 43(9), 1568-1580.

Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J., & McNeill, J. R. (2007). The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature?. Ambio, 36(8), 614–621.