Climatic Determinism: Then and Now<\/p>\n
National Hellenic Research Foundation<\/p>\n
Athens, 18\u00a0 20 July 2011<\/p>\n
Climatic determinism has a very long and checkered history. It gave a<\/p>\n
framework for thinking about the relationship between the human and<\/p>\n
natural environments by making the climate a demiurge of social<\/p>\n
universe. In the past, climatic determinists put forward a species of<\/p>\n
political ethics whose self-serving claims about the environmental<\/p>\n
determination of virtue, value and privilege have long been subject of<\/p>\n
debate and criticism. Most problematically, the idea of climate as a key<\/p>\n
force in social development has naturalized existing forms of cultural<\/p>\n
domination, political hierarchy, economic dependency and racial<\/p>\n
inequity. While most of such thinking has been discredited, in recent<\/p>\n
years, the omnipresence of anthropogenic climate change has caused a<\/p>\n
resurgence of similar ideas, causing scholars and commentators to ask if<\/p>\n
these represent a revival of climatic determinism and, if so, with what<\/p>\n
consequences?<\/p>\n
This question is especially relevant in today\u00b9s policy domain, in<\/p>\n
which we see climate change as the most prominent environmental issue<\/p>\n
and one of the key forces in shaping of international politics, global<\/p>\n
economy and social theory. In this context, we have all become gradually<\/p>\n
aware that climatic trends, past and present, have a lot to do with the<\/p>\n
history of energy, political power, and technological innovation as much<\/p>\n
as they relate to distribution of goods and services and the legality of<\/p>\n
resource use and exploitation of fossil fuels. Furthermore, as scholars<\/p>\n
in geography and science studies argue, the nature and location of<\/p>\n
climate change are continually being negotiated, interpreted and<\/p>\n
produced through practices and knowledges, none of which can be said to<\/p>\n
dominate others, none of which can be called a master discourse.<\/p>\n
And yet, paradoxically, much of environmental thinking, planning and<\/p>\n
doing these days is framed within a deterministic and reductionistic<\/p>\n
master discourse as a response to the unitary agency of climate change.<\/p>\n
In such a discourse, climate is seen as an external force that impacts<\/p>\n
the economy, affects countries, harms national security, hurts the<\/p>\n
world\u00b9s poor, and potentially leads to global conflict. The UNDP Human<\/p>\n
Development Report, for example, calls for a \u0152fight against climate<\/p>\n
change,\u00b9 while BBC and the Met Office say that \u0152tackling climate change<\/p>\n
will be one of the most important things this generation does.\u00b9 In some<\/p>\n
instances, visual imagery designed to alert policy and popular audiences<\/p>\n
to climatic change, including the \u0152Burning Embers\u00b9 image and the<\/p>\n
\u0152Tipping Points\u00b9 lean towards an environmental deterministic<\/p>\n
interpretation of the climate change impacts. This framing of climate<\/p>\n
change rhetoric presents climate as more than just a trend of<\/p>\n
environmental change. Instead, it constructs it as an independent,<\/p>\n
self-contained and self-perpetuating mechanism with power to shape<\/p>\n
everyday life and structure the way we think about our common future(s).<\/p>\n
Do such views constitute a revival of climatic determinism? How does<\/p>\n
the role of climate in today\u00b9s world compare to its earlier roles in<\/p>\n
geography, earth sciences and political theory? How can historians and<\/p>\n
social scientists contribute to the scientific and political discussion<\/p>\n
of climate crisis?<\/p>\n
Our 2-day meeting in Athens encourages historians, philosophers,<\/p>\n
sociologists, geographers, literary historians, and cultural theorists<\/p>\n
to reflect and debate about reductionist readings, deterministic<\/p>\n
explanations and the putative obviousness of the climate crisis in both<\/p>\n
the academic and the public spheres.<\/p>\n
Abstracts will be reviewed by the Committee consisting of Georgina<\/p>\n
Endfield (Nottingham), James R. Fleming (Colby), George Vlahakis<\/p>\n
(Athens) and Vladimir Jankovic (Manchester).<\/p>\n
Submission deadline: 1 April 2011.<\/p>\n
Please send 200 word abstracts and a brief CV to<\/p>\n
Vladimir Jankovic<\/p>\n
Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine<\/p>\n
University of Manchester<\/p>\n
Manchester M13 9PL<\/p>\n
UK<\/p>\n