by Florian Wobser
This text was originally published in German: https://anthrowrite.hypotheses.org/247
Eight years after the epoch-making study, The Postmodern Condition (1979), philosopher Jean-François Lyotard reflects on its effects in the essay Rewriting Modernity (1987). He offers the following commentary: “I have myself used the term ‘postmodern’. It was a slightly provocative way of placing (or displacing) into the limelight the debate about knowledge. Postmodernity is not a new age, but the rewriting of some of the features claimed by modernity, and first of all modernity’s claim to ground its legitimacy on the project of liberating humanity as a whole through science and technology. But as I have said, that rewriting has been at work, for a long time now, in modernity itself.” [1] In my talk in Constance, the objective is to utilize the postmodern debate as a point of departure to delinate a philosophical trajectory that connects with the contemporary Anthropocene discussion.
It will become evident in the lecture that these two epochal designations as categories of reflection exhibit a genealogical concatenation that simultaneously entails a conceptual affinity that has historiographical and narratological consequences. It is appropriate to discuss the selective affinity between postmodernism and the Anthropocene at the conceptual juncture of the Constance conference.
In the entry “Wie vom Anthropozän erzählen?” (24.05.24; on this blog), the organisers refer to Hans Blumenberg’s reflections on metaphorology as a means of integrating the ‘Menschenerdzeitalter’ into the ‘Reihe neomythologischer Figurationen’ [2]. In addition to his model of the human-world relationship, we could place that of the social human-nature relationship in accordance with the Dialectic of Enlightenment as put forth by Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno. Lyotard is a prominent figure in the field of post-structuralism, which can be conceptualised as a third way that facilitates cross-connections.
In contrast to the thought models originating from Münster and Frankfurt, this Parisian provenance is considered groundbreaking for ʽpostmodernismʼ. Similarly, the concept of the Anthropocene is frequently referred at but rarely fully conceptualised and defined. Both are epochal designations. This is historically and literarily significant for this conference. While Blumenberg and Adorno adhere to a modernist perspective in order to interpret modernity as a decline caused by modern research or capitalist exchange, postmodernism is intended to counter criticism with a new approach that enables orientation towards an open future. Lyotard’s approach around 1980, which also characterises his The Differend (1983), is that of a narrative pragmatics [3], without which conferences such as the one in Constance would not be possible. The call poses the question whether “a literary/artistic historiography [can] emancipate itself from the premises of traditional historiography [and] what possibilities literature and the visual arts […] for the formation of alternative historiographies offer [and] [w]hich possibilities exist to escape from the dilemma of modernization.” [4].
As exemplars of a novel approach to historiography, the concept refers to the arts, including literature, which held significant sway for Blumenberg, Adorno and Lyotard. On the one hand, I could take up philosophically inspired reflections from literature and media art for the transdisciplinary discussion. This is a crucial aspect, as the call emphasises the necessity for a ‘reorientation of historiography in an inter- and transmedial context.’ The repetition structure between the debate on postmodernism and the Anthropocene, which includes a shift from the paradoxical no-future optimism of the 1980s to the ecological scepticism of the 2020s can be traced philosophically and literarily in its poetological expression. This shift can be explained in terms of geology and deep time.
The concept of “anthropo-ʼ or ʽnatural de-centricityʼ currently critically discussed by Hannes Bajohr and Jörg Noller in the context of the Anthropocene and posthumanism (see below), is characterized by an inherent ambivalence, oscillating between a state of decentralization and a subsequent re-centralization. [5; 6]. This dynamic and recursive figure of thought is not only that of traditional hermeneutics, but also of a deconstructive movement that seeks to escape it. Bajohr benefits from this approach, which allows him to adopt a more modern position as a negative anthropology. In contrast, Noller displays greater creativity conceptualizing beyond first and second natures to explore a third nature. The circularity or perhaps counter-spirality, between periphery and centre, could be circled by authors with an affinity for theory, history and form.
One might also consider the work of Rainald Goetz, who, in the 1980s, explored the potential of a hyperactive poetology informed by the spirit of punk. In doing so, he revealed the ambivalence inherent in the fascination with post-structuralism and postmodernism. Firstly, Hirn (1984) states: ‘Irgendwann entdeckt das jeder, der Bücher liest […]. Dann blättert man in diese strukturalistische oder post- oder postpost-Welt hinein, liest hier einen Satz dann dort, dann macht man das Buch zu, haut sich den Rücken an den Kopf, fertig. Dann mischt man das […] mit […] eigenen hangups und Idiosynkrasien, dann vergißt man es, entdeckt es morgen neu, hat damit jede Menge Spaß.’ However, the heuristic fun that favours poetology and narratology quickly passes Goetz by, so that in the same volume he says: ‘Es ist der Zeitpunkt für […] spielerische Philosophie, Mode und Pop. Wie gerne würde ich all das noch einmal feiern. Doch es ist angekommen […] und wird nun, wie alles Angekommene […] ohne Sentiment und mit Lust zu Stück gehaut [7].
On the other hand, there is almost nothing in Alexander Kluge’s expansive multimedia oeuvre that does not exist. Kluge’s audiovisual essay Die Sahara wurde Sumpfgebiet (2008 [8]), for instance, could be employed to honour a media expression – situated between Frankfurt and France – that affects all contexts of the conference. A comprehensive overview from the Big Bang to the techno club culture of the 2000s engages the audience in a thought-provoking journey and, in mass media self-reflexivity (Fig. 1/2), implicitly challenging every form of temporal linearity (Fig. 3), evolutionary hybridity (fig. 4), a separation of ʽfacts & fakesʼ (fig. 5/6), the dichotomy of natural and cultural history (fig. 7/8), and a self-assured anthropocentrism (fig. 9-12). In this irritating way, a humorous ʽliquefactionʼ of history, evolution and geological deep time is presented to a broad audience on (web) TV [9].
However, any engagement with postmodernism is inherently multifaceted and presents a multitude of possibilities. Conversely, this means that despite my profound fascination with narratology and media aesthetics, I am proposing historiographical considerations that are atypical for Constance. This ‘teaser’ thus announces much that it does not fulfil – which makes it somewhat paradoxical (see above). By referencing Lyotard’s initial quotation, it is proposed that the cyclical process which links postmodern logic with the Anthropocene will be subjected to more detailed examination and interpretation through the lens of genealogy and conceptual analysis. Both postmodernism and the Anthropocene are susceptible to the potential pitfall of creating a new grand narrative in the absence of established ones, as stated by Lyotard. Additionally, the attempt to decentre the human being may paradoxically result in reinforcing its centrality. As previously noted by the conference organisers in their blog post, performative self-contradiction represents a significant historiographical concern: it is therefore important “bei der Erzählung vom Anthropozän nicht genau die neuzeitlichen Muster zu wiederholen, die doch eigentlich durch das Konzept Anthropozän kritisiert werden sollten. Dazu gehören nicht zuletzt westliche, unilineare Zeitmodellierungen, […] oder die Beibehaltung von Wachstums- und Fortschrittsnarrativen, selbst wenn diese mit einem negativen Vorzeichen versehen werden.”
This possible circularity, which Goetz seeks to break up and Kluge attempts to dissolve through montage art, is critically discussed on the grounds of the elective affinity between postmodernism and the Anthropocene. Both concepts share the prefix ʽpost-ʼ, which is not only explicitly relevant in the earlier debate on modernity, but also implicitly for the Anthropocene. In a similar manner to the concept of ‘postmodernism’, the Anthropocene can be understood as a ‘post-Holocene’ discourse. This parallel can be made plausible by current theories that closely link the Anthropocene and posthumanism (Lyotard had already collected these ideas in the volume The Inhuman). The editors of Posthuman? Neue Perspektiven auf Natur/Kultur (2023) highlight the close intertwining of the two discourses in their attempt at categorization. The term ʽposthumanʼ was first used in the course of early post-structuralism. Alongside critical theory and philosophical anthropology, it is important for the theoretical context, among other things [10]. Representatives of posthumanism could thus be understood as the ʽsecond generation of postmodernismʼ, developing a ʽphilosophy of the Anthropoceneʼ [11]. Although the concept of ʽde-/centrationʼ outlined above leaves its textual and sign worlds, it remains a heuristic model for characteristics of the discourse on the Anthropocene, which is itself characterized by post-anthropocentrism and dualism (e.g. between nature and culture) as well as perspectivism [12].
If it is accurate to conclude that discussions about the potential ʽhuman-centrednessʼ are still indebted to the preliminary work of the actors of post-structuralism and the ʽde-centring of meaningʼ, the repetition loop or continuation spiral that serves for historical categorisation would be given. From a historiographic point of view, it is noteworthy that this reference to the risk of a negative narrative of progress would genealogically correspond to a doublet of the Anthropocene and postmodernism. The latter exhibits a synchronous, conflicting plurality of discourses that is also shared by the Anthropocene, if we think of the conflict between the ʽCapitaloceneʼ and the ʽAnthropoceneʼ [13] or the five narratives that made up the ›Menschenerdzeitalter‹ʼ [14]. In this context, history reasserts itself, pushing, from an ecological perspective, for priority and from a diachronical perspective for normativity (with regard to human-nature relationships, among other things). This marks a clear divergence to the former ʽposthistoireʼ. That raises the next question: what relevance does this theoretical-historical simultaneity of repetition and progress/catastrophe have for Anthropocene ʽ(hi-)storiesʼ? Lyotard considered the ʽediting of modernityʼ to be its ‘working through’ [15]. Is the ‘Anthropocene’, by analogy, always already a ʽworking throughʼ of our Holocene? This presumption through science and technology was also noted by Lyotard. Does this debate about a narratology or historiography – the ʽlaboratory of (hi-)storiesʼ – thus (see above) ʽcome into full lightʼ and if so, what is the purpose of theoretical-poetological change of perspective after all?
Translation: Anna-Lena Eick and Tom Vanassche
References
[1] Lyotard, Jean-François (1991): „Rewriting Modernity“. In : The Inhuman. Reflections on Time. Cambridge: Polity Press, 24-35; 34.
[2] Eick, Anna-Lena, Achim Landwehr und Tom Vanassche (24.05.24): „Wie vom Anthropozän erzählen?“. WritingtheAnthropocene (abgerufen am 08.08.24 von https://anthrowrite.hypotheses.org/63).
[3] Lyotard, Jean-François (1999). Das postmoderne Wissen. Ein Bericht. Wien: Passagen, 63-86.
[4] The CFP can be found here: https://networks.h-net.org/group/announcements/20036691/geschichten-schreiben-im-anthropozan-konstanz-4-6-september-2024 (last accessed: 08 August 2024).
[5] Bajohr, Hannes (2023): Keine Quallen. Anthropozän und Negative Anthropologie. In: Cress, Thomas; Murawska, Olivia; Schlitte, Annika (Hrsg.): Posthuman? Neue Perspektiven auf Natur/Kultur. Paderborn: Brill; Fink, 73-88; 84; Noller, Jörg (2023): Ethik des Anthropozäns. Überlegungen zur dritten Natur. Basel: Schwab.
[6] Diese Denkfigur habe ich in mehreren Publikationen verfolgt, etwa angewendet auf Essayfilme: Wobser, Florian (2023): ›De-/Zentrierung‹ des Menschen im Anthropozän – Reflexion wissenschaftlichen und künstlerischen Ausdrucks im Film (Herzog; Geyrhalter). In: Kloeg, Julien (Hrsg.): International Yearbook for Philosophical Anthropology, Volume 11 (2022): art/science. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 173-195 bzw. auf Fotografien und Dokumentationen: Wobser, Florian (2024): Mensch-Natur-Beziehungen im Anthropozän. Ideen für Bildung und Didaktik im Fach Philosophie/Ethik. In: Ders. (Hg.) Anthropozän. Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven und philosophische Bildung. Frankfurt a.M./New York: Campus, 193-216.
[7] Goetz, Rainald (2003): Hirn. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 59; [?].
[8] Zu diesem Clip von Alexander Kluge (2008): https://www.dctp.tv/filme/die-sahara-wurde-sumpf/ (abgerufen am 08.08.24).
[9] Wobser, Florian (2024): Interviews und audiovisueller Essayismus Alexander Kluges. Ein ästhetisch-performatives Bild-ungsprojekt und seine Relevanz für Philosophie- und Ethikunterricht. Berlin: Metzler/Springer, 219-222.
[10] Cress u.a. 2023, 6; 11.
[11] Ferrando, Francesca (2019): Philosophical Posthumanism. London: Bloomsbury, 2; 187
[12] Cress u.a. 2023, 12-22.
[13] Moore, Jason W. (2016): Anthropocene or Capitolocene? Nature, History and the Crisis of Capitalism. Oakland: PM Press; Kairos.
[14] Dürbeck, Gabriele (2018): „Das Anthropozän erzählen: fünf Narrative“. In: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte. Klima (21-23), 11-17.
[15] Lyotard 1991, 26.