Decolonializing the Anthropocene: Technological Schizophrenia

and the Enchantment of Nature

Karsten Alexander Schulz
Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn
Department of Political and Cultural Change
Walter-Flex-Str. 3, 50113 Bonn, Germany
kaschulz@uni-bonn.de
This draft version may be cited as: Schulz, K. (2016). Decolonializing the Anthropocene: Technological
Schizophrenia and the Enchantment of Nature. Forthcoming in: Woons, M. & Weier, S. (eds.) Borders,
Borderthinking, Borderlands: Developing a Critical Epistemology of Global Politics. Bristol: E-International
Relations Publishing, 20 pp.
This is the revised draft of a book chapter that is to appear in an edited volume on Borders, Borderthinking,
Borderlands in 2016. The idea for this edited volume emerged from a Summer Institute that took place in May
2015, and assembled scholars from different parts of the world to create a platform for exchange on anti-colonial
struggles and decolonization processes that continue to challenge borders and the epistemologies of politics and
the political built around them. The terms Borders, Borderthinking, Borderlands will not only be approached in
their immediate political and physical sense of inclusion and exclusion, but also as pervasive tropes of thinking that
shape the epistemological and ontological foundations of global politics.
Summary: There is little doubt that the notion of the Anthropocene is one of the most potent and contested
symbols for the predicaments of relentless capitalist accumulation and environmental destruction. However, in
spite of the (neo-)colonial implications of this state of affairs, there has been little engagement with how the
Anthropocene concept may be perceived through the prism of decoloniality. Albeit in the spirit of a modest
theoretical contribution, my intention is to approach this question from two different angles. The first aspect
that I will discuss here is the meaning of technology for a decolonial approach to the Anthropocene, mainly by
drawing on the notion of technological schizophrenia that has been advanced by Gilles Deleuze and Felix
Guattari. The second aspect relates to a very different way of thinking that appears to be worth considering in
a decolonial context, namely the mindset of enchantment, referring to a heightened sense of wonder or
bewilderedness that often coincides with cultural processes of myth-making. In other words, I am not only
interested in exploring how the seemingly fixed borders between ecology, technology and society are
increasingly blurred in the newly proclaimed Anthropocene age. I also seek to show how contemporary ideas
of history and empirical science are still influenced by diverse mythological substrata that carry with them
sediments of the grand stories of humanity, and must be taken very seriously in their capacity to shape the
future outcomes of global politics. The idea of enchantment then emerges as a perspective of decoloniality, an
invitation to engage in a very different conversation about the spiritual, technological and value-related aspects
of the Anthropocene that complements the language of empirical science. Overall, this seems to be a worthwhile
but rather problematic endeavor, not only in view of diverse forms of dogmatism, but also due to the prevalent
appropriation, stigmatization, distortion and romanticization of alternative (or so-called indigenous) ways of
knowing. Yet, without finding a new language for the Anthropocene epoch, so I argue, its politics will simply
be mute, and further calls for transdisciplinarity will be uttered inside of an intellectual echo chamber.

Schulz, K. (forthcoming in 2016) Decolonializing the Anthropocene DRAFT VERSION

Disbelief in the metaphysical logically results in misplacing the emphasis on the earthly.
Our century, indeed, lives in the delusion that it is thereby preparing the golden age ...
Carl Du Prel, The Philosophy of Mysticism, London 1889.
Modern man, the world eater, respects no space and no thing green or furred as sacred. The
march of the machines has entered his blood. They are his seed boxes, his potential wings
and guidance systems on the far roads of the universe The ancestral center exists no longer.
Anonymous millions roam the streets.
Loren Eiseley, The Invisible Pyramid, New York 1970.

The proclamation of the Anthropocene, the symbolic day of reckoning that

reveals our collective human actions as a geological force, has vividly dispelled
pervasive myths of linear economic progress and techno-scientific optimism.
Once the idea of an Anthropocene epoch had been released into the sphere of
ecopolitical discourse, however, critics were quick to note that the New Human
Age1 is not only hard to grasp from natural scientific point of view, but also
greatly contested from a cultural perspective. But how can we come to terms
with the rather elusive concept of the Anthropocene? Is it the Industrial
Revolution and the invention of the stream engine that marks the beginning of
the Anthropocene era? Is it our mastery of fire, the Neolithic Revolution and
invention of agriculture that swept aside nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyles
and sparked a new epoch? Or did the Anthropocene rather begin with the
Trinity test, the first explosion of an atomic bomb in New Mexico in July 1945,
when, to paraphrase J.R. Oppenheimers famous quote from the Bhagavad Gita,
techno-scientific progress became Death, the destroyer of worlds?

Anthropocene from Greek: = human being/man; = new.

Schulz, K. (forthcoming in 2016) Decolonializing the Anthropocene DRAFT VERSION

Common to all these questions about the Anthropocene is a collective

scholarly attempt to make sense of the multiple entanglements between nature
and culture in the twenty-first century, all while being faced with the thread of
a looming climate apocalypse, the Sixth Mass Extinction Event, caused by
humans (Morton 2014: 258).
In light of this fossil-fueled vision of the Anthropocene Noir (Rose 2013),
where the seemingly abstract and yet frighteningly real entirety of humanity
is facing its own consumptive death drive, we must nonetheless ask ourselves
whether the imagined we of humanity that is responsible for dangerous
changes in the Earth system really equals all of us? A long history of violence,
racism and discrimination that is related to diverse forms of (neo-) colonial
expansion and Western industrialization is certainly testament to the fact that
not all human beings always count as human, and that animals often count as
mere things. In many ways, it has become readily apparent that illusions of
lasting human dominion over nature and limitless capitalist accumulation have
created a situation in which the mixed effects of anthropogenic climate change
on the Earths ecosystems will likely be distributed along the fracture lines of
inequality (Matthew 2008: 3).
The construction of a de-colonizing position from which we can survey the
implications of the knowledge/power conundrum in the Anthropocene era
must therefore give rise to new forms of transdisciplinary collaboration which
are geared toward studying with subaltern social groups and making diverse
forms of knowledge about power-ridden political, technological and culturalcognitive transformations widely accessible (Mato 2000: 487).
However, in times of omnipresent algorithms and globalized flows of
commodities, technologies, bodies, services and virtual capital, together with a
discernible shift in political power toward burgeoning economies, we can see

Schulz, K. (forthcoming in 2016) Decolonializing the Anthropocene DRAFT VERSION

that simplistic notions of clearly definable responsibilities in the Anthropocene

have already morphed into a more complex picture. This notion of complexity
is most clearly expressed in the more-than-human (or posthuman) aspect of the
Anthropocene condition, where humans and nature are seen as essentially coproduced. Pondering our collective responsibility in this proclaimed New
Human Age, we can only marvel at the rapid dissolution of fixed ontological
boundaries between us and our technological artefacts. The Cartesian duality
of mind and body, and by extension of the argument, also our epistemic view of
Nature and Society as separate and independent entities seem to quickly
dissolve in view of the multiple reciprocal connections between materiality and
social signification (Moore 2015a: 9). Assemblages of the human and the nonhuman, of organic and inorganic matter are gaining quasi-autonomous agency
in their actual and virtual interactions, enmeshed in the interdependent web of
existence where all of a sudden no one is responsible for dangerous
anthropogenic climate change, because all of us already are.
Therefore, while questions of responsibility, identity politics and the human
condition are once again taking center stage in ecopolitical debates, I argue that
ambiguous notions of humanity and posthumanity are precisely the abstract
universals that preclude the utopian political potential of the dmos. Or, to put
the same argument differently, I maintain that the individual is hardly liberated
from its apparent Anthropocene death drive by being complicit in the gradual
de-humanization of social theory. Fuchs (2009: 275) remarks that
the blurring of the boundaries between humans, animals, and technologies, as
undertaken by cyborg theory, animal liberation activists, and actor network theory, is
a dangerous endeavor because it risks reducing humans to the status of animals or
machines in an instrumental, anti-humanist and potentially biologistic or technocratic
way that could erect new fascist forms of domination.

Schulz, K. (forthcoming in 2016) Decolonializing the Anthropocene DRAFT VERSION

Without necessarily succumbing to a nave form of anthropocentric

apologetics, it is thus crucial to question whether the pervasive notion of a
posthuman life in the Anthropocene is already justified by accentuating the
centrality of good ecological stewardship and the need to respect the dignity of
all living beings? Simply dismissing arguments for the notion of a shared
humanity as being motivated by mere sentimentality, hidden agendas of white,
male domination, or the desire to return to an idealized and pristine past (now
condescendingly called bioconservatism) is certainly problematic from an
ethical and political point of view. Even if such critiques are valid in light of the
commendable intention to overcome human hubris, advocate for animal rights,
and fight the various manifestations of structural violence, the main ethical
point, so I argue, is that conflating the notion of humanity with either ecology or
technology may not simply result in greater humility and a heightened
awareness for our place in the interdependent web of life. It may also lead to a
political line of reasoning in which the locus of ethical agency and responsibility
for the Anthropocene is fundamentally obscured by the abstract complexity of
socioecological and sociotechnological systems.
Thus, being cognizant of the fact that the New Human Age is to a large extent
the historical product of colonial expansion and industrialization, it is worth
examining what we may be able to learn from an engagement with the
Anthropocene through the prism of decoloniality. Albeit in the spirit of a modest
theoretical contribution, I will approach this question from two different angles.
The first aspect that I will discuss here is the meaning of technology for a
decolonial approach to the Anthropocene, whereas the second aspect concerns
a very different way of thinking that appears to be worth considering, namely
the mindset of enchantment, referring to a heightened sense of wonder or
bewilderedness that often coincides with social processes of myth-making.

Schulz, K. (forthcoming in 2016) Decolonializing the Anthropocene DRAFT VERSION

Drawing on imaginaries of the border which serve as a key political

metaphor for this edited volume, it is obvious that the alleged borders between
nature, technology and humanity have been rather fluid even before our
ancestors used the first stone tools and wore animal skins to keep themselves
warm. At the same time, it is evident that a clear-cut distinction between human
and non-human agency is difficult to uphold in our present technonatural
systems.
Nevertheless, the fact that our subjective experiences and relations are first
and foremost of a human nature, even if they are mediated experiences, does
not necessarily compel us to draw particular teleological2 consequences from
this condition. Bearing in mind the eminent threat of human self-extinction, the
emancipatory perspective of a shared humanity might rather encourage us to
engage more deeply with questions of ethics, value and justice, and prompt us
to assess the coloniality of knowledge as well as the implications of asymmetric
power relations from a perspective of political ontology.
Broadly speaking, political ontology can be defined as the study of the
political stakes of the question of being (Abbott 2012: 24) as well as a
philosophical project which aims to discuss the inherent contingency of the
external ground in relation to which ethical and political life gain their sense of
what is right (White 2000: 6). In this sense, political ontology becomes a
suitable starting point for a decolonial reading of the Anthropocene concept.
Following Fry and Kalantidou (2014: 185), I initially suggest to perceive the
fluid boundaries between nature and culture in the Anthropocene through the
lens of betweenness, referring to an ontology of non-binary oscillation or a
constant movement within contradiction rather than between contradictory
2

Here I refer to any attempt to explain the human conditionfor example in relation to the environment
by reference to some absolute purpose, end, goal, or function.

Schulz, K. (forthcoming in 2016) Decolonializing the Anthropocene DRAFT VERSION

positions. As Theodor W. Adorno (1962) maintains, contradictions are not

merely epistemological in nature and thus related to (colonial, Eurocentric)
subject-object relations. Contradictions may also be inherent in objects
themselves, which means that they cannot always be resolved by acquiring new
forms of knowledge, since the object itself may be fundamentally inaccessible
to us by virtue of its intrinsic ambiguity (Fuchs 2009: 244).
Thus, while decolonial thinking aims to politicize epistemology from the
experiences of those on the border (Laurie 2012: 13), it seems promising
indeed to expand its critical analytical reach by simultaneously politicizing
ontological inscriptions on objects, and by interrogating that which is
objectified, muted or rendered passive, for example technological and other
material formations, subaltern populations and the environmentat least if the
environment is merely regarded as a capitalist externality. By pointing to the
inherent ambiguity of such fixed ontological inscriptions, which oftentimes give
deceptively simple answers to the question of where the object might end and
the subject begins, it becomes possible to access the deeper political dimension
of these very attributes, and to develop a critical mindset of decoloniality that
encourages us to move within ontological contradictions. At the same time, it
does not at all follow from this approach, as some rather eccentric members of
our species seem to believe, that moving within contradiction is a mode of
inquiry that imposes the duty of never deciding.
How is it then possible, we may ask, to explore the ontological contradictions
of the Anthropocene idea from a decolonial standpoint?
In order to dispel the omnipresent specter of Cartesian dualism, it is first of
all necessary to realize that colonial extraction and Western industrialization
are fundamentally technological phenomena, epitomized by the invention of the
steam engine and the building of railroad lines. Moreover, they must also be

Schulz, K. (forthcoming in 2016) Decolonializing the Anthropocene DRAFT VERSION

regarded as processes that are developing through, rather than acting upon,
nature (Moore 2015b).
In the first part of their seminal work on Capitalism and Schizophrenia
Deleuze and Guattari promulgate, and we may read this as a genuinely
ontological claim, that all of reality is machinic. Yet, the machinic is not a third
realm between Nature and Society. It is not a third sphere that is neither human
nor natural, as we commonly imagine it to be. The fundamental ontological
notion is that all is one, that there is no fundamental difference between
humans and nature since they are interconnected through the same process of
becoming. In the eyes of Deleuze and Guattari, this process of becoming is
proceeding in a state of technological schizophrenia, a universe of productive
and reproductive desiring-machines driven by the goal of universal primary
production as the essential reality of man and nature (D&G 2004: 5). In this
capitalist technonature, there is no perceived difference between the biological
and the social. All life functions and must be organized along the same lines of
machinic production.
It is hardly surprising that this machinic ontology derives much of its
mythical power from the notion of metallurgy. Corresponding allegories and
metal workers are abound in the theoretical work of Deleuze and Guattari,
exemplified by archetypical figures such as the alchemist and the smith (Cline
2014). In the cyborg, we also find a new interpretation of the mythical figure
of the Golem, the speechless and soulless anthropomorphic being that is created
out of the earths materials to serve the will of the sages.
However, a second ontological dimension of our coexistence within the
environment re-emerges if we think of it in terms of possessing a more-thanhuman agency, an innate capacity to sustain our bodily and spiritual existence,
to communicate, interact and become with us by inscribing an ambiguous

Schulz, K. (forthcoming in 2016) Decolonializing the Anthropocene DRAFT VERSION

syntax in our minds and on our bodies. Agro-industrial and machinic practices
of capitalist accumulation and territorialization are certainly not the only way
of thinking about nature-making in the Anthropocene. In short, the key
question is whether the decolonialization of the Anthropocene, among other
things, requires us to develop a new sense of enchantment, to discover the
myths we tell us about ourselves and our relationships with the living
environment that may potentially transcend the strictly policed boundaries of
mainstream sustainability debates and replace the schizophrenic ontology of
endless production.
This second aspect of decolonialitywhich I am admittedly only able to
briefly sketch heredoes not imply to nurture new grandiose feelings of
Enlightenment romanticism, or to regard all ontological propositions as equally
valid. Instead, the decolonial alternative is to take a more modest analytical
approach which seeks to avoid the path dependencies of institutionalized
knowledge production by realizing the political and cultural-cognitive
limitations of a machinic ontology, and by avoiding exclusionary empirical
dualisms such as scientific vs. indigenous or natural vs. supernatural.
Yet, as soon as we embark on a decolonial journey within contradiction, we
may often find ourselves walking on thin ice from a professional point of view.
It almost seems as if the pervasive objectification of nature and its empiricist
reduction to biogeochemical processes, which arguably dominate the natural
sciences and much of contemporary ecology, have vigorously slammed the door
shut on any serious attempt to begin a new conversation about the scientific
demystification of life. Such an all-encompassing demystification of the morethan-human dimensions of our existence may even preclude the articulation of
new utopian alternativeseven if they are only contingent alternatives. In her
book Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things Jane Bennett (2010: xv;

Schulz, K. (forthcoming in 2016) Decolonializing the Anthropocene DRAFT VERSION

10

emphasis in the original) points out that demystification tends to screen from
view the vitality of matter and to reduce political agency to human agency.
Those are the tendencies I resist.
Thinking and being political in the Anthropocene therefore requires us to
reclaim the right to be irrational, the right to be enchanted, even if this means to
(temporarily) leave the traditional realm of scientific inquiry altogether, and
to engage in a very different type of conversation that is not limited to debating
the advantages or disadvantages of vitalist philosophy and the role of religion
within the liberal state. As long as so-called indigenous ontologies based on
experience, art, language and ritual are marginalized within contemporary
ecological discourses, this seems to be a risk we must be willing to take.
Then, does the idea of enchantment imply that we should refrain from seeing
ourselves as mere scholars and strive to become better poets, artists and
iconoclasts who unearth the salient myths that are connected to the idea of the
Anthropocene? This is certainly one possibilityinasmuch as the latter
suggestion leaves room for the important thought that we are constantly reinterpreting our various mythological traditions in order to make sense of the
past and prepare for a vague future. However, this process of mythologization
that imparts the past with metaphysical qualities is neither a new cultural
phenomenon, nor is it one that is exclusively linked to the Anthropocene.
In the aftermath of the famous battle of Kadesh that took place between the
Egyptian and Hittite empires in 1274 BCone of the first military engagements
for which a detailed contemporary account has been discoveredthe Egyptian
king Ramses II already knew too well how to rely on his scribes and artists to
turn a rather indecisive military engagement abroad into a triumphant
propaganda victory at home. In what could be described as the prototype of a
modern public relations campaign, the king unified the rich faculties of

Schulz, K. (forthcoming in 2016) Decolonializing the Anthropocene DRAFT VERSION

11

expression that are inherent to spirituality, poetry, architecture and technology

in a masterful way to craft an image of himself as a glorious victor and god-like
ruler who single-handedly defeated the enemies of the realm on the battlefield.
At the same time, Ramses The Great understood that creating a mythical image
of his eternal glory was not simply a matter of convincing his contemporaries,
but a long-term project aimed at influencing future historic accounts. Seen in
this light, history is always already a process of myth-making, of filling in the
blank spots and enchanting the past, often to reduce ambiguity and to tell more
or less linear tales of human evolution.
From a decolonial point of view, the notion of enchantment thus invites us to
illuminate how different narratives of human history are mythologized in the
Anthropocene era. Who tells the grand narratives of human history in the
Anthropocene? Who (and what) is included and excluded in the dominant
myth-making processes of our time?
At close inspection, it seems as if modern politics, science and technology are
not as rational and demystified as some may want to believe. First of all, there
is no doubt that organized religion continues to be a defining factor in societies
all around the world. In addition, we find that some of the most iconic thinkers
of Western empirical science were profoundly influenced by ideas of alchemy
and hermeticism, including Sir Isaac Newton and Benjamin Franklin, as well as
Erasmus Darwin and Romantic Scientists like Goethe and Novalis (Wilson
2007: 13). The relevance of these irrational undercurrents for todays
rationalized and disenchanted world, to finally paraphrase Max Weber, is of
course debatable.
While it seems wise to acknowledge that money and power are frequently
implicated in holistic, spiritual, and esoteric affairs, it is interesting to note that
the hermetic paradigm of the living Earth is neither adequately described by

Schulz, K. (forthcoming in 2016) Decolonializing the Anthropocene DRAFT VERSION

12

the category of science, nor by the category of religion, which turns it into a very
special form of borderthinking.
Beyond the confines of Western (Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian) cultural
traditionsthat are arguably far less Western and much more hybridized than
purist ideas of culture are able to conveywe encounter a rich repertoire of
mythical thought as well. Examples include so-called indigenous traditions of
shamanism and paganism, African art, philosophy and spirituality, as well as the
mythical heritage of ancient China, India, Persia, or Egypt.
In the Humanities, to use such a clumsy term for lack of a better word, where
some postmodern scholars would possibly reject the scientist label altogether,
one does not need to look very hard either to discover that an influential thinker
like Gilles Deleuze readily confessed that he feels like a pure metaphysician
(Villani 2007: 45).3 And who would deny that even a simple computer is quite
an enigmatic machine for many of usa state of affairs that regularly awakens
millennialist visions and a whole range of technological anxieties, some of which
seem to be rather unsubstantiated, while others appear to be more imminent.
Luciano Floridi (2015: 10; emphasis added) comments:
The point is not that our machines are conscious, or intelligent, or able to know
something as we do. They are not. The point is that they are increasingly able to deal
with more and more tasks better than we do, including predicting our behaviors ...
This is what I have defined as the fourth revolution in our self-understanding. We are
not at the center of the universe (Copernicus), of the biological kingdom (Darwin), or
of the realm of rationality (Freud) Science is based on Big Data and algorithms,
simulations and scientific networks, all aspects of an epistemology that is massively
dependent on, and influenced by, information technologies. Conflicts, crime, and
security have all been re-defined by the digital, and so has political power. In short, no
aspect of our lives has remained untouched by the information revolution.

3 According

to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2013), Gilles Deleuze has also been referred to as
a library of Babel by his colleague Jean-Franois Lyotard.

Schulz, K. (forthcoming in 2016) Decolonializing the Anthropocene DRAFT VERSION

13

Following this line of reasoning, we may readily conclude that older mythical
elements re-emerge as part of a digitalized and globalized epistemological
fabric. Put differently, myths are not only the subject of the fine arts, cinema,
video games or literature. Mythical references can be found everywhere, in the
rationalized sphere of the political economy and technology as well as in
debates about geopolitics. This rich mythical repertoire consists of narratives
that have developed under specific historic, cultural and social circumstances,
and have now been incorporated into the globalized techno-capitalist system.
However, examples of mythical incorporation are certainly abound. They
range from the incorporation of the Greek pantheon into the Roman religion, to
the gods, heroes, villains and tricksters that have now been incorporated into
the movies of the Hollywood industry.
Moreover, there are numerous rituals and mythical references in politics and
the economy that are used to legitimize hierarchies as well as contested claims
to power, starting from the insignia and crowning of queens and kings to the
bread and games spectacles of popular culture that are used to ideologize
consumerism.
This means that a decolonial perspective of enchantment has to be more
than an act of mythologization, de-mythologization or re-mythologization.
Simply speaking in mythical or metaphysical terms about ourselves or the living
environment is not per se a decolonial position. Quite to the contrary. As the
case of Ramses II has shown, mythical repertoires are as much an expression of
genuine spirituality as they are of worldly power. And of course, they may be
misused as technologies of enchantment (Gell 1992) to support various forms of
coloniality, dogmatism, and extremism.4
4 Alfred

Gell differentiates between the technology of enchantment on the one hand, which he describes as a
process in which technical activities such as art, music, ritual and architecture are used to express sacred or

Schulz, K. (forthcoming in 2016) Decolonializing the Anthropocene DRAFT VERSION

14

For instance, there is a clear trend toward cultural appropriation that can be
observed with regard to mythical imaginaries and experiences of so-called
indigenous people. Indigenous visions which encourage greater harmony with
the environmentrather than its permanent appropriationare frequently
discarded as subaltern forms of knowledge that have to be incorporated into
the greater epistemic canon of modern techno-science. At the same time, there
is a whole industry at work that turns indigenous philosophies into consumer
products such as books, films or seminars, which often promote mere selfoptimization, intellectual escapism, or esoteric kitsch. It is prudent to be
politically mindful at this point. Indigenous ways of becoming-with the
environment are not meant to be calls for more conscious geoengineering,
business-yoga, the patenting of indigenous medicine, or new green revolutions
led by the agro-chemical industry.
So what can we learn from this state of affairs with regard to the relationship
between nature, society and technology? And what does this mean for a
decolonial approach to the politics of the Anthropocene?
If you would simply ask me whether I see myself as a scientist, whether I
enjoy the achievements of modern techno-science, medicine and the agroindustry, then I must honestly say: Yes, I do. I am writing this chapter on a
computer, in a peaceful setting, in a capitalist country, near a supermarket. And
still I realize that this situation is deeply connected to a system of consumption
and production which relentlessly destroys the environment and forcibly
denies the same privileges to subaltern populations, while exploiting them

metaphysical qualities. On the other hand, he speaks about the enchantment of technology, which means to
imbue technical artifacts and activitiesas suchwith metaphysical qualities, for example cathedrals,
paintings, dances, sculptures, or machines. This is an important distinction to make if we wish to
understand how enchantment and technology are related to each other. Gell himself emphasizes that both
processes may be misused as techniques of power.

Schulz, K. (forthcoming in 2016) Decolonializing the Anthropocene DRAFT VERSION

15

economically, culturally, and in many other ways. There is everyday racism and
discrimination. There is violence. But this is beside the point I am trying to
make.
The main point is that developing a genuinely decolonial perspective on the
Anthropocene requires scholars to practice borderthinking from their own
point of view. In many cases, this means to avoid overly simplistic either/or
choices. You are either a scientist, or you are enlightened. You either dispose
of your computer, or you are a hypocrite for criticizing modern technology ...
(which I am not doing by the way, I am merely criticizing some of the ways in
which it is used, or might be used) I will not try to answer such questions.
The idea of decoloniality, so I argue, must go beyond many of these divisions,
while still acknowledging that they do exist, and that we are often complicit in
maintaining them. In this sense, decoloniality is as much about mutual learning
and a different vision of becoming political, as it is about bridge-building and
positions of betweenness, about bringing together the international relations
specialist with the artist and the landless farmer to spark a very different
conversation that enlivens the present. The problems that stand behind the
notions of (neo-)colonial politics and the Anthropocene era are too immense to
remain out of touch.
Thus, if the notion of borderthinking can teach us one thing, it is that the
categories and language of (Eurocentric) empirical science clearly reach their
limits as soon as we are trying to describe the predicaments that are connected
to the Anthropocene idea. This is not about choosing sides. I would rather hope
that more poets write about politics. I would also hope that a new dmos finds
its places to gather, to speak, and to listen.
However, we may legitimately conclude that the idea behind the notion of
dmos is fairly nave. Does it not simply promote the ideal of citizenship, while

Schulz, K. (forthcoming in 2016) Decolonializing the Anthropocene DRAFT VERSION

16

ignoring the reality of who is considered a full citizen (or even human) in the
present political and economic climate? Does it not totalize the ideal of Western
liberal democracy and operate with epistemic categories that are inherently
colonial? Does the notion of dmos not exclude animals and the living
environment? Perhaps it does all of the above. Yet more importantly, these
questions about becoming political point us to an important problem that may
be best described in terms of the relationship between the philosophical
notions of telos (how things should be) and techn (how to make things that
way).
Empirical science, so is the argument, has either neglected the former aspect
of telos (how things should be), or it has reduced it to a problem of political and
economic management. At the same time, we see that the Anthropocene has an
unsettling effect on those who are primarily concerned with the how to (or
techn) of empirical science and international relationshow to deal with
climate change, how to feed nine billion people by 2050, how to understand
mass migration? The list is endless. There is no shortage of problems.
And while the problems behind the Anthropocene become more pressing, we
can see that economic growth is indeed not a very convincing answer to matters
of concern such as environmental destruction, poverty, and hunger. In a recent
article titled The Problem with Saving the World, anthropologist Jason Hickel
(2015) describes the fundamental dilemma that is arguably at the heart of the
debate about the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):
Of all the income generated by global GDP growth between 1999 and 2008, the
poorest 60 percent of humanity received only 5 percent of it. Given the existing ratio
between GDP growth and the income growth of the poorest, it will take 207 years to
eliminate poverty with this strategy, and to get there, we will have to grow the global
economy by 175 times its present size. This is terrifying to contemplate. Even if such
immense growth were possible, it would drive climate change to catastrophic levels
and, in the process, rapidly reverse any gains against poverty.

Schulz, K. (forthcoming in 2016) Decolonializing the Anthropocene DRAFT VERSION

17

The SDGs do, however, call for income growth for the bottom 40 percent of the
population at a rate higher than the overall average but it doesnt address the bigger
issue of the aggregate production and consumption levels that this approach requires.
For the sake of argument, lets say that poor countries manage to grow incredibly fast,
and quickly catch up to the average high-income country. According to data provided
by the Global Footprint Network, we would need at least 3.4 Earths to sustain this
level of production and consumptionand thats assuming that the already-highincome countries slow their present rates of growth to zero, which they show no sign
of doing.

Thus, in view of the multiple and interconnected problems that are

related to the growth-mantra of industrialized production and consumption,
the aspect of telos becomes suddenly eminent. Why are we doing what we do?
To be precise, I am neither suggesting that empirical science is completely
ignoring teleological questions (because it does not), nor am I positing that
philosophy is dead (a good case to show that even brilliant physicists like
Steven Hawking can be utterly wrong at times). I am arguing that the language
of Eurocentric empirical science is profoundly limiting with regard to the scope
of the Anthropocene conversation. In other words, the problem that Sebastian
Petrina (in press: 22) identifies with regard to the critique of technological
progress, namely that they do not seem to have any reliable ground, is just one
more example of how all-encompassing the machinic ontology of endless
desiring and production (and consequently its downside, the Anthropocene
Noir of relentless consumption) has already become. Questioning the neocolonial characteristics of the sociotechnological epistemic fabric that we have
createdand that in turn has created a part of usnecessarily means to
question ourselves, to disassemble our own mythical self-image. Who are we,
after all? Together apart in a Promethean story.
This is exactly the point where the notion of enchantment can help us to
illuminate the imagery of the Anthropocene. While being mindful of our
ancestral spiritual traditions and the symbolic forms of expression that we have

Schulz, K. (forthcoming in 2016) Decolonializing the Anthropocene DRAFT VERSION

18

inherited, we may understand enchantment as an encounter with what the

philosopher Henry Corbin calls the imaginal world, or mundus imaginalis. This
imaginal world is not simply an imaginary or a utopian fantasy, a wild image
of the mind. Instead, it is seen as a realm of being rooted in both, the cognitive
and cosmological function of the imagination. In the words of Corbin (1972: 7),
it provides the foundation for a rigorous analogical knowledge permitting us to
evade the dilemma of current rationalism, which gives us only a choice between
the two banal dualistic terms of either matter or mind ... ultimately, the
socialization of conscience is bound to replace the matter or mind dilemma by
another no less fatal one, that of history or myth. Thus, enchantment seeks
to chart out a mediatory path that unites the sensory world, the sphere of
intellect and the active imagination (mundus imaginalis) through a movement
within contradiction in order to arrive at a new perspective from which we are
able to reflect on the image of the border as well as the relationship between
coloniality, technology and history in the Anthropocene.
Finally, I would like to conclude my thoughts in the spirit of borderthinking,
by invoking the last vision of the great Lakota mystic Crazy Horse that was
spoken in 1877, approximately seven generations ago. It was retold by Chief Joe
Chasing Horse, a relative of Crazy Horse.
Upon suffering beyond suffering; the Red Nation shall rise again and it shall be a
blessing for a sick world. A world filled with broken promises, selfishness and
separations. A world longing for light again. I see a time of seven generations when all
the colors of mankind will gather under the sacred Tree of Life and the whole Earth
will become one circle again. In that day there will be those among the Lakota who
will carry knowledge and understanding of unity among all living things, and the
young white ones will come to those of my people and ask for this wisdom. I salute the
light within your eyes where the whole universe dwells. For when you are at that
center within you and I am that place within me, we shall be as one.

Schulz, K. (forthcoming in 2016) Decolonializing the Anthropocene DRAFT VERSION

References
Abbott, M. (2012). No Life is Bare, the Ordinary is Exceptional: Giorgio
Agamben and the Question of Political Ontology. Parrhesia 14, 2336.
Adorno, T.W. (1962). Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften. Soziologische
Schriften I. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 574585.
Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant Matter: a political ecology of things. Durham:
Duke University Press.
Cline, A.C. (2014). Notes on Metallic Affect: Metallurgy and New Materialism.
FORUM 19, 112.
Corbin, H. (1972). Mundus Imaginalis, or the Imaginary and the Imaginal.
Zrich & New York: Spring Press [online].
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (2004). Anti-Oedipus. London: Continuum.
Du Prel, C. (1889). The philosophy of mysticism. London: George Redway.
Eiseley, L. (1970). The Invisible Pyramid. New York: Scribner.
Floridi, L. (2015). Singularitarians, AItheists, and Why the Problem with
Artificial Intelligence is H.A.L. (Humanity at Large), not HAL. APA
Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers 14(2), 811.
Fry, T. and Kalantidou, E. (2014). An exchange: questions from Tony Fry and
Eleni Kalantidou and answers from Walter Mignolo. In: Fry, T. and
Kalantidou, E. (eds.) Design in the Borderlands. London and New York:
Routledge, 173188.
Fuchs, C. (2009). Towards a critical theory of information. TripleC 7(2),
243292.
Gell, A. (1992). The Technology of Enchantment and the Enchantment of
Technology. In: Coote, J. and Shelton, A. (eds.) Anthropology, Art and
Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 4063.
Hickel, J. (2015). The Problem with Saving the World. Jacobin Magazine
[online].
Laurie, T. (2012). Epistemology as Politics and the Double-Bind of Border
Thinking: Levi-Strauss, Deleuze, Mignolo. Portal: Journal of
Multidisciplinary International Studies 9(2), 120.
Matthew, R.A. (2008). Resource Scarcity: Responding to the Security
Challenge. International Peace Institute 2008 [online].
Mato, D. (2000). Not Studying the Subaltern, but Studying with Subaltern
Social Groups, or, at Least, Studying the Hegemonic Articulations of
Power. Nepantla: Views from South 1(3), 479502.
Moore, J.W. (2015a). Nature in the limits to capital (and vice versa). Radical
Philosophy 193, 919.

19

Schulz, K. (forthcoming in 2016) Decolonializing the Anthropocene DRAFT VERSION

20

Moore, J.W. (2015b). Putting Nature to Work. In: Wee, C., Schnenbach, J. and
Arndt, O. (eds.) Supramarkt: A micro-toolkit for disobedient consumers, or
how to frack the fatal forces of the Capitalocene. Gothenburg: Irene Books,
69117.
Morton, T. (2014). How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Term
Anthropocene. The Cambridge Journal of Postcolonial Literary Inquiry
1(2), 257264.
Petrina, S. (in press). Critique of technology [Draft]. In: Williams, P.J. and
Stables, K. (eds.) Critique in design and technology education. Dordrecht:
Springer [online].
Rose, D.B. (2013). Anthropocene Noir. Arena Journal 41/42, 206219 [online].
Villani, A. (2007). I Feel I Am a Pure Metaphysician: The Consequences of
Deleuzes Affirmation. In: Collapse: Philosophical Research and
Development Vol. III (ed. R. Mackey). Falmouth: Urbanomic, 4562.
White, S.K. (2000). Sustaining Affirmation: The Strengths of Weak Ontology in
Political Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wilson, P.L. (2007). The Disciples at Sas: A Sacred Theory of Earth. In: Wilson,
P.L., Bamford, C. and Townley, K. (eds.) Green Hermeticism: Alchemy and
Ecology. Aurora, Colorado: Lindisfarne Press, 928.