The term Anthropocene is increasingly being recognized as a proper term to depict the current geological era, replacing the long-used term Holocene, the era that began some 11,650 years ago. This new term was helpfully explained in an article about two new movies that opened last week.*
Theologian Joerg Rieger,
however, thinks there is a more accurate term to use for the present age, and
he writes about that in his new book.
Joerg Rieger is a professor of theology at Vanderbilt University. He was born in Germany and will celebrate his 60th birthday next week. An ordained Methodist minister, Rieger had already authored/edited 20 books when he joined the faculty at Vanderbilt in 2016.
Theology in the Capitalocene: Ecology, Identity, Class, and
Solidarity (2022) is the title of Rieger’s significant new book. Since I am
also writing a review of it,** I
asked GPT chat for help. Here is how they described the book:
Theology in the Capitalocene by Joerg Rieger is an important and thought-provoking book that offers a critical examination of the intersection of theology and capitalism in the context of the Anthropocene era.
Rieger’s
book is not a quick read nor is it easy to digest all of his salient emphases. One
criticism I have of his valuable book is the overabundance of references to
other scholarly works.
This
would be an excellent book for doctoral students writing their dissertations on
related issues. But it may be overwhelming for the general public. And even I,
who finished a doctoral dissertation over fifty-five years ago (though in a far
different field), found his book challenging.
Here
are some of Rieger’s main emphases that are worth serious consideration,
and I am grateful to him for introducing each of these.
* Emphasis on the importance, and neglect
of serious consideration of, “unpaid reproductive labor” that is directly
linked to discrimination against women.
* Emphasis on the distinction between power
and privilege. This has ramifications that are often overlooked.
* Emphasis on class as a societal structure
rather than “classism,” which is largely based on stereotypes.
* Emphasis on “deep solidarity.” I have
long thought that solidarity is something that we who are privileged, to
whatever degree, can choose out of loving concern by becoming allies of those
who are “underprivileged.”
While there may be reason to
retain some of that emphasis, Rieger stresses that solidarity is a fact that
needs to be acknowledged rather than something chosen in an over/under
relationship.
All of these, as well as his prevalent emphasis on ecological
concerns, are related to the pernicious power of capitalism in the present
world.
My main criticism of Rieger’s book is his apparent
belief that the serious ecological predicament facing the world today is a
problem that can be solved. His position contrasts with what I have written
over the past eighteen months about overshoot and the collapse of civilization.
Most scholars who are currently university professors and embrace deep ecological concerns hold the same position that Rieger does. The following words spoken in the 1930s are still quite relevant and true today:
 |
I can certainly understand why one in Rieger’s position
would not want to publicly talk about the possible “end of the world as we know
it” in a decade or two. If they believed that to be true, most high school
students would likely decide that there would be no use going to college.
Rieger does show considerable compassion for the people who
are suffering now because of capitalism as well as for the natural world that
is being ravaged by the forces of capitalism, and I appreciate that concern.
Still, there needs to be more awareness that we who are now
living in the Capitalocene era will soon be seeing massive numbers of people
(and non-human life) dying in this present age because of the ever-expanding
predicament produced by capitalism.
_____
* See “‘Barbie’ and ‘Oppenheimer’ tell the same
terrifying story,” an intriguing July 19 opinion piece in The Washington Post.
**
Last month I
received a free Kindle copy of Rieger’s book by promising to write a blog
article and/or review of it. The promise was made to Mike Morrell, who operates
“Speakeasy,” a website that offers “quality
books in exchange for candid reviews.” Here
is the link to the rather long review I have written, subject to further revision. Among other things, that review amplifies the too-brief treatment of Rieger’s emphases given above.
Thank you, Leroy. I'm currently reading Cynthia Bourgeault's new book _The Corner of Fourth and Nondual_ in Fortress' new series "My Theology," so I was reading your blog with Cynthia B. in mind. As you perhaps know, she is a disciple of Teilhard de Chardin. I look forward to learning more about Rieger's "Capitalocene," especially since I live near the US Capital, as does several of your kin. How does Rieger's book lead us to prayer? How does it help us say, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven? Cynthia's book--and maybe I should say Jorge's book too in order to keep them parallel--Cynthia's book explicitly leads us to prayer, centering prayer especially as she has been one of the prime teachers of this method of centering oneself in the divine. Again, Leroy, thanks for highlighting Jorge's book, Theology in the Capitalocene. I've found my beach read! We will help me in my own Capital-scene, both in Maryland, where I live, and now in Connecticut, where I now serve. Peace, Michael
ReplyDeleteThose last two sentences should read: "I've found my beach read! It will help me in my own Capital-scene . . ."
DeleteWell, Michael, you were the first to comment on this morning's blog article and I am just now responding to it. (We have house guests with us today.) I appreciate the challenge of your comments--and the clever way you wrote about another meaning of "capital." Since I knew the book was about capitalism, I didn't give a thought to what the dictionary gives as the first meaning of the word "capital."
DeleteI have seen quotes from Cynthia Bourgeault from time to time, but I have not read any of her books--and this new one certainly appears to be one worth reading. But I don't know how to answer the two important questions you asked in your comments. (Maybe that is the main reason I didn't respond sooner.) At the very least, Rieger's book leads us to pray for wisdom in this difficult time, for understanding of terribly complex issues, and for compassion for those who are now suffering and the multitudes who will be suffering even more in the years ahead.
Your second question is more difficult to respond to. Humankind, under the unrelenting pressure of capitalism, may have already gone to far for God's will to be done on earth until a remnant left from the coming collapse of TWAWKI starts afresh to work for "shalom" on the earth. In my book "Thirty True Things Everyone Needs to Know Now" (2019), #6 is "The Main Characteristic of the Kingdom of God is Shalom." I firmly believe that that is so, but for that to come to pass it may take a lot longer, centuries and centuries longer, than I previously thought, and beginning with just a remnant of the world's present population.
Well, you corrected the end of your comments above, and I am here correcting the beginning of the response I made to Craig (below). Spellcheck saw my "saw" but didn't realize that I meant to say "say."
DeleteThe concept of overshoot, something you have called attention to in the past, is certainly something we should all take seriously. Conceivably, there is a point of no return, when the human induced damage to the planet is so severe that the trajectory inevitably results in the demise of the human race. Should this happen, the planet will no doubt continue forward without humans, and eventually "heal" itself (reach a state of equilibrium).
ReplyDeleteThough such a point of no return is conceivable and indeed does exists (I believe), we do not know "when" or "where" that point will be. This is because of complexity. Because of complexity, with so many variables nonlinearly reflexively interacting with one another, humans can continue to (conveniently) avoid accepting responsibility for things they view beyond their individual control. In short, people find it hard to see how their perceived insignificant actions (or inactions) as individuals contribute to the greater pool of interactions that contribute to the larger macro problem.
I believe there are a couple of reasons for this. One problem is simplicity or linear thinking (Paul Cilliers, Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems; Edgar Morin, On Complexity). Human beings have been conditioned by modernity -- the Enlightenment and the Industrial Age -- to think linearly. Conditioned to think this way, humans are ill prepared to deal with the complexities of the current age -- the Information Age, etc. -- in which we live. We live in an age where the "dots" cannot all be conceptually connected (unless you are a super computer) because they are nonlinearly and indirectly connected. Causation is not necessary direct, nor identifiable in the singular. The safe predictable world of simplicity and linearity was functional in the far simpler times of the past (the Industrial Age) but do not serve us well in the present age of complexity (the Information Age). Much more can be said, but I will stop here.
Another reason is optimism bias (Tali Sharot et al., The Optimism Bias: A Tour of the Irrationally Positive Brain). Everyone has a tendency to see themselves as "above average" or somehow the exception. Bad things happen to other people, not me. School shootings, for example, happen to others at other schools. Because "I am above average," "my circumstances are different," "bad things" cannot/do not happen to me. The problem is, mathematically, not everyone can be "above average." Bad things do happen and they can happen to anyone. Psychologists, however, say we need this optimism bias. Without it, we may never get out of bed or exit our homes for fear of "bad things" happening to us. So, in short, we want to believe the projected "bad things" can't happen because they can't happen to us as individuals. Optimism bias, therefore, impacts how I think and therefore behave (act or do not act) as an individual. Much more could be said.
Regarding Rieger's book, I look forward to reading it. The intersectionality of so many forces (within our new world of complexity) he seems to identify can only contribute to addressing the challenges we face today.
Thanks also, Michael, for these meaty comments and for introducing important books and ideas in the third and fourth paragraphs. Rieger's book is not what most people would consider a "beach read," but you have the intellect and the knowledge to read and understand Rieger's book, which contains so much that I was not able to refer to in my blog post or in the longer review linked to in the footnote. And he certainly places proper emphasis on the meaning and importance of intersectionality.
DeleteSorry, Leroy. In my rush to comment, during a break from work, I failed to sign my comments above. Tom Nowlin
DeleteSorry, Tom (and Michael), for assuming that it was the same "Anonymous" commenting. I was a bit surprised at the books mentioned in the comments, but Michael is a very intelligent man (with a Ph.D.), as you are, Tom, and I feel quite sure he is interested in intersectionality, so I just assumed it was him making further significant comments. But, yes, Tom, these are the type of comments, and references to meaty books, that I have received from you before, so I was certainly not surprised to see that they were, in fact, from you. Thanks for making the additional comment identifying yourself
DeleteAs expected, there have not been many comments on today's blog post other than "Anonymous" above. I did receive the following comments, though, from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:
ReplyDelete"The temperatures we are witnessing around the world this month may confirm your perspective, Leroy, but I cling to some positive signs of efforts to address climate change. So I would side with Rieger and would not ascribe his hopefulness to attracting students to college."
Thanks for your comments, Dr. Hinson. Indeed, there are some positive signs of efforts to address climate change--although it seems to me they are far too few and far too late. Everything that is done now will have benefit in the short run, I think, but from what I have read and heard from specialists in the fields of biology and the earth sciences, I think it is already too late to make much difference in the long run unless there are massive changes, which are almost certainly not going to take place. (I plan to write about this more, with reference to Al Gore, the end of next month.)
DeleteI would also like to side with Rieger, for he says so much that is of great importance for the present and near future, and I do not want to accuse him of duplicity. But for anyone who is in a profession or a business that depends on the continuation of the status quo, taking the possibility of the crumbling of the present world order seriously enough is psychologically challenging if not nearly impossible.
I just discovered the term "Capitalocene" a couple of weeks ago in a CNN article about "Anthropocene" moving closer to being an official geological term. It was a rather off-hand reference, but it caught my eye. You have inspired me to go back to that article and try a link, which took me to a brief blurb about "Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, History, and the Crisis of Capitalism" which was Edited by Jason W. Moore, © 2016 PM Press. So I am fascinated that someone has taken this idea and tried a theological spin on it. The CNN article is here: https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/world/anthropocene-epoch-geological-time-unit-scn/index.html
ReplyDeleteNow as to whether to be optimistic or pessimistic about solving climate change, I am by nature both, especially on what climatologist Katharine Hayhoe who has coined the genius title "Global Weirding." Global Weirding has been on overdrive this year. I am an optimist because our profound ignorance blinds us to paths that may be open ahead. I am a pessimist because we may already be past a catastrophic tipping point which we cannot undo.
Which gets us to the Capitalocene. Fredric Jameson is credited with saying "It is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism." The internet took me to a dense post-modern article titled "Future City" from 2001. I did not find the exact sentence, but the general drift was in the direction of seeing the whole world descending into endless shopping. Indeed, about that time President Bush did tell everyone to go shopping to help win the Iraq war. I am interpreting Jameson's quote in a literal way, capitalism is destroying the world, and there seems no way out of it, so it really is easier to imagine the end of the world (caused by capitalism) than to imagine the end of capitalism. Which leads to the challenge: We must imagine the end of capitalism!
Wow, Craig, what significant and thought-provoking comments you have posted here!
DeleteI had seen a few news articles about the designation of the new epoch called Anthropocene, but I didn't see (or at least didn't read) the CNN article. Thanks for calling it to my/our attention. Indeed, as I saw in the review I posted of Rieger's book (and that few have read to this point) that new term "was coined by Jason W. Moore, an environmental historian, in a book published in 2015, although he used the term prior to that." And Reiger, of course, cites Moore but mainly his book published in 2016, which is linked to in the CNN article.
I was also interested in your reference to Katharine Hayhoe, whom I have read a bit about but know little of. I had remembered her being identified as an evangelical Christian (and Wikipedia says that she is an MK, missionary kid, but I don't know at this point what denomination her parents were with). I think she is much like Rieger in that she sees the problem and knows what needs to be done--and still thinks there is time to make the necessary adjustments, which I doubt.
I didn't know (or remember) the name Fredric Jameson, and I was glad to learn about him and his intriguing statement about capitalism. But I'm afraid his statement may be right--and before the world as we know it is ended because of overshoot, it might well be destroyed by nuclear warfare launched by countries, such as the U.S., trying to prevent capitalism from being destroyed.
You know me, Leroy, and how basically I'm in agreement with you about the environmental issue, including the pessimism. Now, I consider myself a democratic-socialist, which is something like a leftist liberal. Capitalism is a most powerful force, like no economy ever before, as Marx acknowledged and seemed to think it was an essential step towards socialism. Conceivably a well-regulated capitalism could have avoided this coming environmental disaster. But another equally powerful force has collaborated with it to bring us to this point, namely nationalism. Once nationalist competition and conflict became the leading force in international relations, nations were not going to exercise the kind of wisdom that only a few could see needed decades and decades ago. Even the communist nations in competition with capitalist nations stimulated their economies in environmentally unwise ways. Today, China is the second greatest polluter alongside the USAmerica. What I'm suggesting is that it's not only the priorities of capital and the power of the capitalist class but also the combination with nationalism that is leading us down the path to self-destruction. As you also know, I recently wrote an article in which I indicated that just as the Middle Ages were known as the Age of Faith and the Enlightenment (17th-19th centuries) has been known as the Age of Reason, the 20th century, because of wars, revolutions, and the triumph of capitalism, could be termed the Age of Contest. That century cannot be understood without both capitalism and nationalism. We're a quarter of the way into the 21st century and, so far, appear to be primed to continue the disasters of the 20th on an even greater scale.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your pertinent comments, Anton. I think your calling our attention to the issue of nationalism was a valuable addition to this discussion. I don't think nationalism itself is a causal factor in the current ecological crisis, but certainly nationalism has exacerbated the capitalism that is the primary cause of our environmental predicament.
DeleteIt certainly does seem that we are no longer in an Age of Reason, but somehow I don't like the terminology "Age of Contest." Do you think "Age of Competition" could be used as an alternative term? It seems to me that it is the capitalistic competition among the countries, including the supposedly socialist countries, that is causing the economic problems to worsen continuously.
Facebook Friend Charlie Fillingham posted these comments on my FB timeline:
ReplyDelete"As I seem unable to comment directly on your post, I will share some thoughts here: I truly appreciate all the scholarly comments that were left regarding capitalism versus the ecology on your post. As far as the pessimism versus optimism for the long-term health of our planet, I could certainly be swayed either way. I am pessimistic by nature and yet on this issue, I want to be more optimistic. I cannot say for certain whether it is faith or my optimism bias coming through, but I do look for a salvation of mankind, either through the return of Christ in the long term or a Holy Spirit, given wisdom to deal with our destructive natures in our capitalist/nationalist economies. Thank you Leroy for initiating this thoughtful discussion."
Thanks for your comments, Charlie, and as I wrote on Facebook, I have often said that my intention is always to be realistic rather than either optimistic or pessimistic--but learning/thinking about the current ecological crisis makes what I consider realism look a lot like pessimism.
Delete