Climatic Determinism: Then and Now
National Hellenic Research Foundation
Athens, 18 20 July 2011
Climatic determinism has a very long and checkered history. It gave a
framework for thinking about the relationship between the human and
natural environments by making the climate a demiurge of social
universe. In the past, climatic determinists put forward a species of
political ethics whose self-serving claims about the environmental
determination of virtue, value and privilege have long been subject of
debate and criticism. Most problematically, the idea of climate as a key
force in social development has naturalized existing forms of cultural
domination, political hierarchy, economic dependency and racial
inequity. While most of such thinking has been discredited, in recent
years, the omnipresence of anthropogenic climate change has caused a
resurgence of similar ideas, causing scholars and commentators to ask if
these represent a revival of climatic determinism and, if so, with what
consequences?
This question is especially relevant in today¹s policy domain, in
which we see climate change as the most prominent environmental issue
and one of the key forces in shaping of international politics, global
economy and social theory. In this context, we have all become gradually
aware that climatic trends, past and present, have a lot to do with the
history of energy, political power, and technological innovation as much
as they relate to distribution of goods and services and the legality of
resource use and exploitation of fossil fuels. Furthermore, as scholars
in geography and science studies argue, the nature and location of
climate change are continually being negotiated, interpreted and
produced through practices and knowledges, none of which can be said to
dominate others, none of which can be called a master discourse.
And yet, paradoxically, much of environmental thinking, planning and
doing these days is framed within a deterministic and reductionistic
master discourse as a response to the unitary agency of climate change.
In such a discourse, climate is seen as an external force that impacts
the economy, affects countries, harms national security, hurts the
world¹s poor, and potentially leads to global conflict. The UNDP Human
Development Report, for example, calls for a Œfight against climate
change,¹ while BBC and the Met Office say that Œtackling climate change
will be one of the most important things this generation does.¹ In some
instances, visual imagery designed to alert policy and popular audiences
to climatic change, including the ŒBurning Embers¹ image and the
ŒTipping Points¹ lean towards an environmental deterministic
interpretation of the climate change impacts. This framing of climate
change rhetoric presents climate as more than just a trend of
environmental change. Instead, it constructs it as an independent,
self-contained and self-perpetuating mechanism with power to shape
everyday life and structure the way we think about our common future(s).
Do such views constitute a revival of climatic determinism? How does
the role of climate in today¹s world compare to its earlier roles in
geography, earth sciences and political theory? How can historians and
social scientists contribute to the scientific and political discussion
of climate crisis?
Our 2-day meeting in Athens encourages historians, philosophers,
sociologists, geographers, literary historians, and cultural theorists
to reflect and debate about reductionist readings, deterministic
explanations and the putative obviousness of the climate crisis in both
the academic and the public spheres.
Abstracts will be reviewed by the Committee consisting of Georgina
Endfield (Nottingham), James R. Fleming (Colby), George Vlahakis
(Athens) and Vladimir Jankovic (Manchester).
Submission deadline: 1 April 2011.
Please send 200 word abstracts and a brief CV to
Vladimir Jankovic
Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL
UK
