Answer & Explanation:I need a draft for a concept analysis paper on the topics of community development, community and change.Each concept must be 700 words and show an understanding of these terms and reflect on your
own learning from this task.
As I am spending a great deal of money, I would like this to be completed at a very high standard.A few points to consider may be:
·
Are there differences
in definitions of the concept
·
How is the concept
applied in different settings eg. education, health, policy
·
What are the debates
or critiques surrounding these concept
·
How does the use of
the concept relate to your own experience and or area of workword length 2100 longCriteriaEvidence of critical reflection of conceptsA strong understanding of each concept supported by readings
Ideas that are logical and contain a good structure
Appropriate use of grammar, conventions and referencing Integration of relevant reading material Note: I will give a few reading to the tutor once I know they will not disclose any information to the public.
gibson_graham_and_roelvink_2010__1_.pdf
mannarini_and_fedi_2009_.pdf
krznaric_oxfam_2007_how_change_happens__1_.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
An Economic Ethics for the
Anthropocene
J. K. Gibson-Graham
Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA;
graham@geo.umass.edu
Centre for Citizenship and Public Policy, University of Western Sydney,
NSW, Australia;
katherine.gibson@uws.edu.au
Gerda Roelvink
Centre for Citizenship and Public Policy, University of Western Sydney,
NSW, Australia;
g.roelvink@uws.edu.au
Abstract: Over Antipode’s 40 years our role as academics has dramatically changed. We
have been pushed to adopt the stance of experimental researchers open to what can be learned
from current events and to recognize our role in bringing new realities into being. Faced with
the daunting prospect of global warming and the apparent stalemate in the formal political
sphere, this essay explores how human beings are transformed by, and transformative of, the
world in which we find ourselves. We place the hybrid research collective at the center of
transformative change. Drawing on the sociology of science we frame research as a process
of learning involving a collective of human and more-than-human actants—a process of cotransformation that re/constitutes the world. From this vision of how things change, the essay
begins to develop an “economic ethics for the Anthropocene”, documenting ethical practices
of economy that involve the being-in-common of humans and the more-than-human world. We
hope to stimulate academic interest in expanding and multiplying hybrid research collectives
that participate in changing worlds.
Keywords: Anthropocene, ethics, community economies, hybrid research collective, morethan-human
In 2008, the Geological Society of London announced a new
geological epoch, the Anthropocene, in which humankind is
foregrounded as a geological force or agent:
The Holocene epoch—the interglacial span of unusually stable
climate that has allowed the rapid evolution of agriculture and urban
civilization—has ended and . . . the Earth has entered “a stratigraphic
interval without close parallel in the last several million years.”
In addition to the buildup of greenhouse gases, the stratigraphers
Antipode Vol. 41 No. S1 2009 ISSN 0066-4812, pp 320–346
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00728.x
⃝
C 2009 The Authors
C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Journal compilation ⃝
An Economic Ethics for the Anthropocene
321
cite human landscape transformation which “now exceeds [annual]
natural sediment production by an order of magnitude,” the ominous
acidification of the oceans, and the relentless destruction of biota. This
new age, they explain, is defined both by the heating trend (whose
closest analogue may be the catastrophe known as the Paleocene
Eocene Thermal Maximum, 56 million years ago) and by the radical
instability expected of future environments . . . Evolution itself . . . has
been forced into a new trajectory (Davis 2008).
The end of the Holocene, the coming of the Anthropocene, the displaced
trajectory of evolution—these apocalyptical images toss us onto a metahistorical playing field without a clue as to how to play the game
(Chakrabarty 2009). Suddenly we are not just billions of individuals and
millions of collectivities but a single species alongside other species, one
whose survival is threatened by its own behavior. References to millions
of years, which used to make our brief lives seem inconsequential,
now endow us with gargantuan agency and an almost unbearable
level of responsibility—intuitively beyond our capacities for rational
or concerted action. Never mind that climate scientists instruct us that
such action, undertaken over the next few years, is the only thing that
can possibly avert a catastrophe.
In response to scientists’ warnings, solutions are being proposed
and put in place—cap-and-trade arrangements, experiments in green
technology (particularly energy) and development, international treaties,
corporate pledges (many already reneged upon), changes in lifestyle
and consumption. Efforts to generate political momentum for change
are intensifying, including cautions about imminent tipping points
and predictions such as Davis’s of a “planet of slums, with growing
food and energy crises” (2008) punctuated by small climate-protected
pockets of the wealthy (Steffan 2008). These attempts at stimulating
outrage and action frequently involve naming and blaming capitalist
industrialization, in both its systemic and personified forms. The head
of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, for example, recently
proposed to a congressional committee that CEOs of fossil energy
companies be tried for “high crimes against humanity and nature”
(Tomdispatch 2008).
Frustrated that confronting the world with terrifying “facts” is not
enough to galvanize appropriate action, climate scientists have begun
to call upon social scientists to come up with new approaches to
social change. And here the debate rages over whether technology
alone can solve our problems or whether fundamental shifts in values
are required (Steffan 2008). Techno-skeptics point to the history of
energy efficient innovations that have resulted in cheaper appliances,
leading to more widespread appliance use and large overall increases
in energy consumption (Hobson 2008). Proponents of values shifts are
similarly unconvincing. As Hobson argues, we don’t seem to know
2009 The Authors
C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Journal compilation ⃝
⃝
C
322
Antipode
how to create such shifts, nor do we know that they are effective.
Information campaigns don’t engender changes in values, and changes
in values don’t automatically yield changes in behavior (2008:7), which
are ultimately what we are seeking—ways of living differently with
the earth. Val Plumwood is eloquent and arresting here: “If our species
does not survive the ecological crisis, it will probably be due to our
failure . . . to work out new ways to live with the earth, to rework
ourselves . . . We will go onwards in a different mode of humanity, or
not at all” (2007:1).
From this perspective, responding to the challenges of the
Anthropocene is not simply about humans finding a technological or
normative fix that will control and restore the earth. It is about human
beings being transformed by the world in which we find ourselves—or,
to put this in more reciprocal terms, it is about the earth’s future being
transformed through a living process of inter-being. But how do we put
ourselves (and the earth) in the way of such transformations? How do
we get from an abstract ontological revisioning to a glimmer or a whiff
of what to do on the ground? No answer arrives when we ponder this
question—just a spacious silence and a slowing down.
Silence and slowness are openings, of course, opportunities for the
body to shift its stance, to meld a little more with its surroundings;
chances for the mind to mull over what floats by on the affective tide, or
to swerve from its course as momentum decreases. Undoubtedly these
are openings for learning. Not learning in the sense of increasing a store
of knowledge but in the sense of becoming other, creating connections
and encountering possibilities that render us newly constituted beings
in a newly constituted world. Latour along with others has called this
“learning to be affected” (2004:205; see also Hinchliffe 2003, 2007).
Effectively we are created as bodies/beings by the entirety of human
and non-human conditions of the world that affect us and from which
we learn—if we are open to doing so.1 Momentous as it may sound
and mundane as it may actually be, this learning is a process of coconstitution that produces a new body-world.
So what does this mean for “an economic ethics for the
Anthropocene?” We are all familiar with posthumanist ontologies that
imagine “an entangled world of living [and non-living] things in which
are relaxed the lines marking off the human from the non-human”
(Anderson 2007:34, insert added). If we can read these new ontologies
as evidence of “learning to be affected” and thus as part and parcel of
a newly sensitized and conditioned world; if we can understand them
as Deleuzian philosophy, “a means of going on rather than a cerebral,
ivory tower pastime” (Whatmore 2004:1360); if we can treat them as
symptoms rather than precursors of change, we may be able to see that
an ethics for the Anthropocene has already emerged. And from there it
might not be such a stretch to discern an emerging “economic” ethics
2009 The Authors
C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Journal compilation ⃝
⃝
C
An Economic Ethics for the Anthropocene
323
in the projects and activities of communities worldwide. It would then
be our role to theorize this nascent formation and make its practices and
promises visible, thereby participating in a new phase of its existence.
It is here that we can finally begin this essay.
∗∗∗∗∗
For several decades now, we have been involved in a project of
rethinking economy, opening to and being practically affected by
the wide diversity of economic activities that offer possibilities of
livelihood and well-being, within and beyond the ostensibly global
purview of capitalist development. We have also opened to our
necessary interdependence with the rest of humanity (Nancy 1991)
and to the possibility of building economic communities in which that
interdependence is acknowledged and enlarged. Theoretically, as well as
through action research in a number of locations, we (alongside others)
have experimented with the ethical dynamics of building community
economies in the air and on the ground.
But it took the near simultaneous deaths of the Holocene and ecofeminist Val Plumwood to shock us into a posthumanist project of
learning to be affected (Roelvink and Gibson-Graham 2009). (Not that
the raw and processed materials for such a project weren’t available
all around us, in our discipline, in the academy, and in the world more
generally.)2 In this essay we begin the process of opening our economic
thinking and enactments to encompass what Jean-Luc Nancy has called
the “being-in-common” (1991:4) of all being(s), human and non-human,
animate and inanimate, processual and fluid as well as categorical and
definite in conception (see also Bingham 2006).
The essay unfolds in three sections. The first section explores learning
to be affected as an ethical process in which bodies and worlds are coconstituted; we introduce the hybrid research collective as the central
character, the body-world that learns. The second section explores the
economic ethics that is emerging among hybrid collectives that have
learned to be affected by the conditions of the Anthropocene; here an
ethics of interdependence embodied in “community economies” comes
into view. The third section highlights the role of research collectives
in the experimental community economies of rural and outback
Australia—noting the role of academics, the proliferation of economic
possibilities, and the transformed landscapes and species of a new econosociality. We conclude the essay with a call to academic action.
Learning to be Affected: An Ethical Practice
of Co-transformation
What is required in order to be “a receiver” of communicative and
other kinds of experience and relationship is openness to the other as a
2009 The Authors
C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Journal compilation ⃝
⃝
C
324
Antipode
communicative being, an openness which is ruled out by allegiance to
reductive theories. To view such differences as simply “theory choices”
is to overstate the intellectualist and understate the performative
aspects involved, which is captured somewhat better in the terminology
of posture or stance. Is it to be a posture of openness, of welcoming,
of invitation, towards earth others, or is it to be a stance of prejudged
superiority, of deafness, of closure? (Plumwood 2002:175–176).
With her reference to an open stance, Val Plumwood brings us to the
edge of embodiment. We are at the brink, in this welcoming posture,
of recognizing earth others as not-other than ourselves; and we are just
a hair’s breadth away from acknowledging our co-constituted being
as body-world. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick (2003) takes us, in her book
Touching Feeling, to a similar edgy location. Always attuned to the body
and its postures, she asks us to reconsider the “paranoid” critical stance
so prevalent among social scientists, which tends to confirm what we
already know—that the world is full of devastation and oppression,
and that transformation is an unlikely if not hopeless project. She
suggests instead an open reparative stance that refuses to know too
much, that makes space for hope and expands possibility. Unlike the
critical stance, which is often suspicious and dismissive, the reparative
stance is receptive and hospitable, animated by care for the world and
its inhabitants (Gibson-Graham 2006:6).
What Sedgwick is concerned to preserve is the world of possibility
that is performatively squelched and narrowed by critical modes of
apprehension. In advocating an open “reparative” stance, she implicitly
recognizes the (trans)formative potentials of a bodily posture, the way
it may promote or allow change, in this case, contribute to a “repaired”
or newly cared for world. Unlike the well-defended critical stance, the
open reparative posture is conducive to learning, itself a transformative
process, and perhaps especially to the kind of bodily learning that
Latour (2004) calls “learning to be affected”. We have grasped onto
this evocative notion for a number of reasons: it provides an accessible
place to start—the body—in addressing environmental crisis; it offers a
greater field of possibility (and no more uncertainty) than technological
and normative approaches; and, most importantly, it distances us from
the subject–object dualism that separates humans from a disparaged or
discounted non-human world. Performing this dualism has arguably led
us into planetary crisis, and “un-performing” it may turn out to be a key
practice in an ethics for the Anthropocene.
Starting with the Body: Learning to be Affected
Drawing on Vinciane Despret’s reading of William James, Latour
suggests that “to have a body is to learn to be affected, meaning
‘effectuated,’ moved, put into motion by other entities, humans or
2009 The Authors
C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Journal compilation ⃝
⃝
C
An Economic Ethics for the Anthropocene
325
non-humans” (2004:205; original emphasis). To illustrate this
constitutive process of living and learning, he takes us to the perfume
industry, focusing on the training sessions through which one acquires
a “nose” that can differentiate subtle variations in smell. An odor
differentiation kit, consisting of a range of fragrances, is used to train
noses, thereby becoming “part of” or “coextensive with the body” (207):
It is not by accident that a person is called “a nose” as if, through
practice, she had acquired an organ that defined her ability to detect
chemical and other differences. Through the training sessions, she
learned to have a nose that allowed her to inhabit a (richly differentiated
odoriferous) world. Thus body parts are progressively acquired at the
same time as “world counter-parts” are being registered in a new way.
Acquiring a body is thus a progressive enterprise that produces at once
a sensory medium and a sensitive world (Latour 2004:207; original
emphasis).
Latour contrasts the “learning to be affected” vision of body-world coconstitution with the familiar (ingrained) ontology where
. . . there is a body, meaning a subject; there is a world, meaning objects;
and there is an intermediary, meaning a language, that establishes
connections between the world and the subject. If we use this model,
we will find it very difficult to render the learning by the body dynamic:
the subject is “in there” as a definite essence, and learning is not
essential to its becoming; the world is out there, and affecting others
is not essential to its existence. As to the intermediaries—language,
odour kits—they disappear once the connection has been established
since they do nothing but convey a linkage (2004:208).
By contrast to this static (dead?) rendering of body/subject and
object/world, Latour’s perfume industry example depicts a dynamic,
changing, living body-world, proliferative and differentiating rather than
stable and monolithic. As he introduces other “intermediaries” into the
example, including scientific debates between “physiologists about the
olfactory and gustatory receptors” (211) and strategies for marketing
perfume, Latour argues that the more entities involved the greater the
opportunities for registering difference and “the wider [more highly
differentiated] the world becomes” (211, insert added). Rather than
narrowing down options and inputs, “learning to be affected” embraces
multiplicity and diversity as creating more possibilities for registering
and enacting the world. Latour refers to this world as “the multiverse”,
no less singular than a universe (note the definite article) but constituted
by beings becoming sensitive to differences (213).
We are interested in thinking about learning to be affected as an ethical
practice, one that involves developing an awareness of, and in the process
being transformed by, co-existence. We are also interested in the ways
that an ethics of learning to be affected might be operationalized in a
2009 The Authors
C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Journal compilation ⃝
⃝
C
326
Antipode
wider arena. In Disclosing New Worlds, Spinosa, Flores and Dreyfus
offer fascinating examples of society-wide and even global changes that
have been initiated and informed by this sort of learning. One of the most
compelling of these concerns Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD),
a citizen action group that the authors portray as transforming the culture
of responsibility in the USA (1997:88–94). MADD was formed by a
group of women who had experienced the death or serious injury of a
loved one due to drunk driving. They came together to share their pain
and anger, which only grew as their collective inquiry identified the
profound disconnect between the huge losses they had suffered and the
minimal level of responsibility for those losses attributed to drivers. At
the time of MADD’s formation, there was considerable social tolerance
of drunk driving—in the (modified) words of the public service ad,
friends did let friends drive drunk. Drinking was often viewed as a form
of “earned” relaxation for hard-working Americans, and the injuries
and deaths related to drunkenness tended to be seen as horribly unlucky
accidents—basically absolving perpetrators of responsibility. MADD
drew public attention to the place of drinking in American social life,
and to the avoidance of responsibility that accompanied it.
MADD’s strategy was to talk to a wide range of citizens, including
lawyers, medical professionals, educators and corporate executives
(1997:91). The mismatch between the mothers’ powerful emotions
and the relatively casual treatment of drunkenness created a sensitivity
in them that enabled them to differentiate the subtle ways in which
drunk driving was differently absolved across many communities
(91–92). Most of the medical community, for example, seemed to
accept that a few daily drinks would have little impact on health.
MADD showed physicians not only that regularly drinking hard
liquor was hazardous to your health—a minority view in medicine
at the time—but also that mixing drinking and driving could damage
another’s health. This began a shift among medical professionals toward
advocating responsible drinking, since it would save lives in a number of
ways (92).
Instea …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Order a plagiarism free paper now. We do not use AI. Use the code SAVE15 to get a 15% Discount
Looking for help with your ASSIGNMENT? Our paper writing service can help you achieve higher grades and meet your deadlines.
Why order from us
We offer plagiarism-free content
We don’t use AI
Confidentiality is guaranteed
We guarantee A+ quality
We offer unlimited revisions