No abstract

The term Anthropocene first appeared in 2000 when scientists Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer attempted to define the environmental effects of anthropic activities. Since then, it has become a widespread, but also controversial, term in the academic community. As environmental discourses increasingly permeate our lives, it has trespassed the borders of scholarly traditions, becoming acknowledged in popular culture. Bearing in mind the pivotal role the press has in the popularization, dissemination and consequent understanding of given topics, the aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, it assesses the popularity of the term Anthropocene in online and printed newspapers around the world. Secondly, it examines the degree of scientificity of the articles included in our analysis to understand the type of discourses journalists are relying on in discussing the Anthropocene. Exploring these questions, through a corpus-based discourse analysis, enabled us to assess the weight of the term ‘Anthropocene’ in contemporary popular debates and its future horizons. The findings highlight a lack of a consistent discussion of the Anthropocene stemming not only from a poor scientific understanding of its ecological drives, but also from the lack of political awareness and a general unpreparedness to face the socio-environmental implications of the Age of Humankind.

This article provides an historical analysis of soybean farming in the most productive region of the world: Latin America’s Southern Cone, with particular attention for Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil. Drawing from the premise that current narratives on soybean cultivation and commercialization have mostly focused on quantitative data of a global scope, this article discusses the potential of scholarly narratives informed by the critical tools of environmental history. Moreover, it proposes the adoption of a new term sublimating the multilayered history of soybeans in the Southern Cone: the Soyacene. This term attempts to shape an original narrative of soybean production in the age of the Great Acceleration, deconstructing misleading historical assumptions. Moreover, by critically discussing the impacts of soybean production, the Soyacene strives to produce a non-essentialist historical narrative in which the diverging interests of different social layers (e.g. governmental actors, private corporations, small farmers and indigenous populations) are addressed with contextualized critical tools.

This contribution discusses the early years of Italian immigration in the uplands of southern Brazil, known as the Serra Gaucha (1875–1915). Tracing back early agrarian practices and deforestation techniques of the early settlement years, we investigate the consolidation of this human group in the southernmost Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul. In addition, analysing the development of both wood logging and winemaking industries in the region, the essay frames the identitarian construction of this social group, looking at the intersection between cultural traditions from the homeland, socioeconomic drives and local environmental factors. This analysis builds upon primary sources from both Brazilian and Italian institutions, local newspapers, and scholarly publications on environmental history, as well as Brazilian and Italian migration history.

This article aims to critically contribute to contemporary commons scholarship, using the lenses of the environmental humanities. Linking existing literature on collective action to a vast amount of literature from both the social sciences and the natural sciences could contribute to a new epistemological framework to understand anthropogenic processes of collective action. Both recent biological evolution theories and ontologically oriented philosophical perspectives have insisted on the endemic collaborative nature of coexistence processes as the embodiment of a larger ecological, material, and cultural whole. Looking at these processes through the lenses of coexistence could potentially reshape commons scholarship, overcoming what I define as the “long shadow of Hardinism,” while simultaneously further stimulating dialogue, and hopefully consilience, between the social and natural sciences.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract