Prior to taking this class, my understanding of Environmental Humanities had been broadly informed by academic heresay about the Antropocene and Post-Human theories, which I understood to be a set of theories that try to expand the understanding and discussion of nature and the environment in the humanities beyond filtering it through a human and a human-utilitarian lens. Broadly speaking… This rather vague understanding found more footing when we discussed Jane Bennett’s Vibrant Matter. Her concrete example of random pieces of trash that have a presence, a history, and are interconnected was not exactly novel to me but it nevertheless influenced the things I noticed around me that I would usually not pay attention to. Most of that though results in speculation, random wondering, and thinking about abstract matters, which is, I understand the exact opposite of what Bennet talks about.

Therefore, what will stay with me is Donna Haraway’s Staying with the Trouble, not instead of Bennett but rather in combination with her text. They both resist easy solutions and graspable conclusions. It is a frustrating conclusion because they force one to keep thinking and to keep pushing even after you think you’ve arrived at understanding. Even at the end of this class, where we read, watched, listened, and talked about more media related to nuclear issues than the average grad student, I feel no closer to knowing what to do about the risk that’s inherent in nuclear power and other nuclear activities or what to do about other environmental concerns. Most of the texts don’t know what to do about them either. Instead they bear witness, which may be all they can do.

In some ways, Haraway’s focus on making-kin and interconnectedness could be misconstrued as optimistic and an easy solution in the sense of “We’re all in this together,” as if that can calm the fearful heart.

What I still struggle with at the end of this class, and this is my version of staying with the trouble, is the aspect of nuclear future or future in general. 1) It is difficult at best to imagine the future and to  do so in a realistic manner. 2) Even when we try to understand the past and have a fairly thorough understanding of our present condition, it remains impossible to grasp and conceptionalize what will be. The risk and damage that are inherent in  nuclear energy and the effects of other environmental disasters make the future look dire, as some of the works we covered, like The Emissary demonstrate, but imagining a dire future, as we know, does not prevent people from being careless. 3) Whatever the future brings, things will adjust and they will, for all intends and purposes, be fine. Fine does not mean that everything will be hunky-dory but rather that an equilibrium will exist.

What this reminds me of is a stand-up bit by George Carlin who riffs about a environmentalists that proposes to be concerned about the planet and he points out that people are concerned about themselves. The earth will be fine. The people may be gone in the future. This may come across as nihilistic but in the spirit of staying with the trouble, comedy and art like this has the potential to startle and shock people into not relying on easy solutions but rather to keep thinking and keep seeing our interconnectedness.

———————————–

Bennett, Jane. Vibrant Matter. Duke University Press, 2010.

Carlin, George. Jammin’ in New York. HBO, 1992.

Haraway, Donna Jeanne. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press, 2016.