Est-il trop tard pour l’effondrement ?

Allard, Laurence; Monnin, Alexandre; Tasset, Cyprien

doi:10.3917/mult.076.0053

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, Meta AI (previously Facebook) recently predicted the existence of 600 million microbial protein structures through machine learning (Callaway 2022). Microbial ecologies are thus made knowable and visible through screen-based encounters and digital mediation and speculation (Almeida et al 2021; Lapidus and Korobeynikov 2021). Such interventions involve the production of novel digital realities in which nonhuman life can be governed at the molecular scale.…”

Section: Digital Encountersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital ecologies: Materialities, encounters, governance

Turnbull

Searle

Davies

et al. 2022

Progress in Environmental Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital technologies increasingly mediate relations between humans and nonhumans in a range of contexts including environmental governance, surveillance, and entertainment. Combining approaches from more-than-human and digital geographies, we proffer ‘digital ecologies’ as an analytical framework for examining digitally-mediated human–nonhuman entanglement. We identify entanglement as a compelling basis from which to articulate and critique digitally-mediated relations in diverse situated contexts. Three questions guide this approach: What digital technologies and infrastructures give rise to digital entanglement, and with what material consequences? What is at stake socially, politically, and economically when encounters with nonhumans are digitised? And how are digital technologies enrolled in programmes of environmental governance? We develop our digital ecologies framework across three core conceptual themes of wider interest to environmental geographers: (i) materialities, considering the infrastructures which enable digitally-mediated more-than-human connections and their socioenvironmental impacts; (ii) encounters, examining the political economic consequences and convivial potentials of digitising contact zones; (iii) governance, questioning how digital technologies produce novel forms of more-than-human governance. We affirm that digital mediations of more-than-human worlds can potentially cultivate environmentally progressive communities, convivial human–nonhuman encounters, and just forms of environmental governance, and as such note the urgency of these conversations.

show abstract

Section: Digital Encountersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital ecologies: Materialities, encounters, governance

Turnbull

Searle

Davies

et al. 2022

Progress in Environmental Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the interlinking of psychological and social dimensions in the thinking on welfare, seeStenner and Taylor (2008). On the category of trauma and its increasing centrality in crisis situations, seeFassin and Rechtman (2009).6 See the case of the research group 'Emidio di Treviri', which was set up in the wake of the August 2016 Central Italy earthquake(Olori and Menghi 2019).7 On the case of 'collapsology', seeAllard et al (2019). See alsoCentemeri (2019).Published in Pellizzoni, L., Leonardi, E., Asara, V. (2022) Handbook of Critical Environmental Politics.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Disasters and catastrophes

Centemeri

Tomassi

2022

Handbook of Critical Environmental Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction and genealogySince its emergence in the 1950s, disaster research has been concerned mainly with the development of operational tools for crises management and intervention, resulting in a prevalence of inductive approaches and a limited interest in more general theoretical issues (Calhoun 2004;Quarantelli 2005; Tierney 2007, p. 504). As a research field, disaster studies are still dominated by approaches (mostly North American) that scarcely dialogue with developments in social theory and critical theory. Moreover, little attention has been paid to the theoretical-empirical research on disasters produced in non-English-speaking countries in either the global south or Europe 1 . Gaillard (2019) denounced the persistence of a form of hegemony from the global north perspective in terms of both concepts and practices, despite the progressive centrality of the 'vulnerability' approach, which has sustained a critical turn in disaster research since it first appeared in the 1970s. In spite of this mixed picture, critical disasters research is today a field of increasing relevance for understanding the socioeconomic dynamics of the globalized world.The notion of 'disaster' first emerged as a specific social sciences category in the United States in the historical conjuncture of the Cold War 2 . Research on disasters was strongly influenced in the early days by governmental and military needs connected in particular with nuclear issues. More specifically, disasters were conceived by public authorities as laboratories for studying social and organizational behaviour in stressful situations. In this sense, disasters were seen as 'a duplication of war' and human communities as 'organized bodies that have to react organically against aggression' (Gilbert 1998, p. 4). In this view, the causes of disasters are situated either on the outside in the form of an external aggression or (less often) on the inside as an internal threat, as in the case of social unrest. As pointed out by Perry (2018), authors during this 'classic period' of disaster research would define disasters as 'rapid onset events' in which the impact or threat of an agent causes social disruption that requires readjustments. Early disaster studies thus focused on organizational and emergent social behaviour during and immediately following such disruptive events.Claude Gilbert (1998) distinguished this 'disasters as war' paradigm from two successive frameworks in which the definition of disasters was gradually reframed as 'social

show abstract

Dossier : « La recherche au défi de la crise des temporalités » : No Future. Les collectifs néopaysans et leur rapport à l’avenir : utopie, dystopie et présentisme

Sallustio

2023

Nat. Sci. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

S’intéresser aux rapports que les individus entretiennent à l’égard du futur et à la façon dont ceux-ci façonnent des états émotionnels (individuels ou collectifs) est utile pour mieux comprendre ce qui motive les pratiques sociales. Cet article propose de s’intéresser aux théories de l’effondrement qui nourrissent l’imaginaire de certains protagonistes du phénomène du « retour à la terre ». Sur la base d’un travail de terrain de longue durée au sein d’une dizaine de collectifs néopaysans dans le Massif central, je mobiliserai le paradigme des temporalités multiples pour nuancer les effets des théories de l’effondrement sur le quotidien des individus. J’argumenterai que les projets visant le repli en monde rural et l’autonomie alimentaire s’inscrivent dans une temporalité présentiste paradoxale qui fait coexister des horizons temporels antinomiques, à la fois pessimistes et optimistes, vis-à-vis de l’avenir et de la lutte sociale. Le refus des acteurs d’adhérer aux grands récits linéaires et d’un mode de lutte organisé et cohérent à visée universelle me permettra ici d’alimenter les réflexions 1) sur l’action humaine dans son rapport à la crise environnementale et sociale et 2) sur des fondements épistémologiques plus généraux, relatifs à la manière d’appréhender les temporalités en sciences sociales.

show abstract

Est-il trop tard pour l’effondrement ?

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Digital ecologies: Materialities, encounters, governance

Digital ecologies: Materialities, encounters, governance

Disasters and catastrophes

Dossier : « La recherche au défi de la crise des temporalités » : No Future. Les collectifs néopaysans et leur rapport à l’avenir : utopie, dystopie et présentisme

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About