The residual humanism of hybridity: retaining a sense of the earth

Abstract

The concept of hybridity has become an influential theoretical tool for examining and reconsidering relations between society and nature. Although benefits have accrued from this school of thought, this paper contends the deployment of hybridity within the geographic discipline falls short of its reconstitutional claims. These shortcomings are a consequence of the original sources used to develop the language and logic of hybridity. Although the concept of hybridity has a long history in the biological sciences, the utilisation of hybridity in the geographic discipline has predominantly relied upon evolving theories developed in science and technology studies. This paper indicates how Haraway’s cyborg and Latour’s Middle Kingdom limit the scope of hybridity by portraying humanity as central to hybridity. The pervasive centrality of humans within the literature on hybridity (1) limits the ability of geographers to embrace poststructuralism in its entirety and (2) diminishes the discipline’s claim to credibly represent the (natural) landscape. This paper argues for a thicker hybridity by borrowing from emergent theories in the biological sciences, wherein hybridity is conceived as a common occurrence that frequently takes place outside the direct purview of society. Rather than reifying nature, thick hybridity forces society to embrace environmental uncertainty more than it has heretofore.

Property Ownership, Resource Use, and the ‘Gift of Nature’

“…While technological advances may herald a marked change in human interactions with nature and the environment (Lulka 2009), we concur with Krier (2008) that the essential feature of the people-environment relationship in a capitalist society is a legal contrivance designed to limit the primary gift relationship to a few "worthy custodians". Thus delimited, the gift becomes an important tool for property owners in establishing social relations with landless others who, of course, require access to the land and are thus drawn into a gift relationship in which the onus of reciprocation lies with them.…”

“…We therefore argue not only that the notion of gift exchange necessarily conceptualises humans as inseparable from non-humans in an exchange process, but also that humans have developed material and nonmaterial relationships with non-human entities such that non-human entities have agency that shapes these gift relationships. As such, we seek to offer an analysis of gift exchange that takes into account the heterogeneity of humans and non humans in nature-society relations whilst not reifying humans, non-humans, or the gift itself (Lulka, 2009). …”

Common sensing: Human-black bear cohabitation practices in Colorado

“…These conceptions have in common that they touch upon the entanglement of human and animal lifeworlds (Hinchliffe and Whatmore, 2006;Latimer and Miele, 2013;Locke, 2013) and the places where humans and animals ''belong" (Schneider, 2013). In this article, we use the concept of cohabitation (Barua, 2014b;Bear and Eden, 2008;Hinchliffe et al, 2005;Lulka, 2004Lulka, , 2009) to highlight the spatial interactions between humans and wild animals as well as the spaces (landscape in its broadest sense, including human-modified and naturally occurring spaces) that shape and are shaped by these interactions (Hinchliffe and Whatmore, 2006). Cohabitation in this sense involves spaceshaping activities by both humans and wild animals resulting in the co-production of landscapes.…”

“…Bear and Eden, 2011;Buller, 2014;Hinchliffe et al, 2005;Hobson, 2007;Lorimer, 2006;Lulka, 2004Lulka, , 2009. Their work suggests to us that one way of moving towards the co-production of landscapes and understanding and resolving human-wildlife conflicts require the exploration of the spatial interactions between humans and animals by zooming in both on the attribution of agency to wild animals, and examining the consequences of doing so for conservation practices.…”

Entangled in language

“…We cannot separate the role of language and discourse from societal concepts of and attitudes toward non-humans. This is not an inherently new observation and has been explored in depth, especially from a poststructuralist perspective both inside geography (e.g., Whatmore 2002, Hinchliffe et al2005, Lulka 2009) and outside the discipline (in particular, e.g., see Derrida 2008, Wolfe 2003. In this article, I would like to further this scholarship by suggesting viewing the connection between language and human-animal relations and, importantly, ethics in terms of two linked manifestations, with Western science connecting to each and mediating them in the production of human-non-human borders.…”