Advertisement

Children in the Anthropocene: How Are They Implicated?

  • Karen MaloneEmail author
Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history

Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)

Abstract

There has been much debate about where the boundaries lie that would mark the arrival of the new epoch of the Anthropocene. There have been a number of possibilities proposed: the start of the Industrial revolution in the eighteenth century or the beginning in the mid-twentieth century known as the great acceleration of population, carbon emissions, biodiversity loss, plastic production, and the beginning of nuclear age with the first atomic bombs spreading detectable radiation to every stratum of the planet. But for many scholars in the humanities, these arguments are not as relevant as what taking up the premise or challenge of the Anthropocene provides. As an unsettling ontology that disrupts a persistent “humanist” paradigm, the concept of the Anthropocene allows new conversations to happen around human-dominated global change, human exceptionalism, and the nature/culture divide. In this chapter through stories from fieldwork with children in La Paz, I will propose the means for considering the ontological openings of the naming of the Anthropocene for the field of childhoodnature.

Keywords

Anthropocene Sustainability Mobilities Enmeshed Childdogbodies Human exceptionalism Haraway Nonhuman Entanglements 

References

  1. Aldred, J. (2014). Past movements, tomorrow’s anchors. On the relational entanglements between archaeological mobilities. In J. Leary (Ed.), Past mobilities: Archaeological approaches to movement and mobility (pp. 21–48). Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, K. (2014). Mind over matter? On decentring the human in human geography. Cultural Geographies, 21(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
  3. Barad, K. (1996). Meeting the universe halfway: Realism and social constructivism without contradiction. Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science, 161–194.Google Scholar
  4. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC/London, England: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge: Polity PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Chawla, L. (2002). Growing up in an urbanizing world. London: UNESCO/Earthscan.Google Scholar
  7. Davies, J. (2016). The birth of the Anthropocene. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2004). A thousand plateaus (B. Massumi, Trans.).London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  9. Derrida, J. (2005). On touching – Jean-Luc Nancy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Driskell, D. (2002). Creating better cities with children and youth. London: UNESCO/Earthscan.Google Scholar
  11. Edgeworth, M. (2014). Enmeshments of shifting landscapes and embodied movements of people and animals. In J. Leary (Ed.), Past mobilities: Archaeological approaches to movement and mobility. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  12. Gan, E., Tsing, A., Swanson, H., & Bubandt, N. (2017). Introduction: Haunted landscapes of the Anthropocene. In A. Tsing, H. Swanson, E. Gan, & N. Bubandt (Eds.), Arts of living on a damaged planet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  13. Grosz, E. (2010). Feminism, materialism, and freedom. In D. Coole & S. Frost (Eds.), New materialisms: Ontology, agency and politics (pp. 139–157), Durham/London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haraway, D. (2015). Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making kin. Environmental Humanities, 6(1), 159–165. http://environmentalhumanities.org.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haraway, D., Ishikawa, N., Gilbert, S. F., Olwig, K., Tsing, A. L., & Bubandt, N. (2015). Anthropologists are talking – about the Anthropocene. Ethnos, 81(3), 535–564.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2015.1105838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hayles, N. K. (2003). Afterword: The human in the posthuman. Cultural Critique, 53, 134–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ingold, T. (2010). Bringing things to life: Creative entanglements in a world of materials. Manchester: National Centre for Research Methods, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  18. Ingold, T., & Vergunst, J. (2008). Ways of walking: Ethnography and practice on foot. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Leary, J. (Ed.). (2015). Past mobilities: Archaeological approaches to movement and mobility. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Lloro-Bidart, T. (2015). A political ecology of education in/for the Anthropocene. Environment and Society: Advances in Research, 6(1), 128–148. http://journals.berghahnbooks.com/environment-and-society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lorimer, J. (2012). Multinatural geographies for the Anthropocene. Progress in Human Geography, 36(5), 593–612.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511435352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Macfarlane, R. (2016). Generation Anthropocene: How humans have altered the planet for ever. The Guardian. 1 April, viewed 15 May 2016. http://www.theguardian.com.
  23. Malone, K. (2017). Ecological posthumanist theorising: Grappling with child-dog-bodies. In K. Malone, S. Truong, & T. Gray (Eds.), Reimagining sustainability in precarious times. Singapore, Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Malone, K. (2018). Children in the Anthropocene: Rethinking sustainability and child friendliness of cities. London, England: PalgraveMacmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Milton, K. (2005). Anthropomorphism or egomorphism? The perception of non-human persons by human ones. In J. Knight (Ed.), Animals in person: Cultural perspectives on human-animal intimacies (pp. 255–269). New York, NY: Berg.Google Scholar
  26. Moore, R. (1986). Childhood’s domain: Play and place in child development. Kent: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  27. Nancy, J.-L. (1997). The sense of the world. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  28. Rautio, P. (2017a). Thinking about life and species lines with Pietari and Otto (garlic breath). Trace: Finnish Journal for Human-Animal Studies, 3, 94–102.Google Scholar
  29. Rautio, P. (2017b). “A super wild story”. Shared human–pigeon lives and the questions they beg. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(9), 722–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rose, D. B. (2013). Wild dog dreaming: Love and extinction. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38(2), 207–226.  https://doi.org/10.1068/a37268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith, M. (2013). Ecological community, the sense of the world, and senseless extinction. Environmental Humanities, 2, 21–41.  https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3610333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Taylor, A., & Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2015). Learning with children, ants, and worms in the Anthropocene: Towards a common world pedagogy of multispecies vulnerability. Pedagogy Culture & Society, 23(4), 507–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vince, G. (2014). Adventures in the Anthropocene: A journey to the heart of the planet we made. Ottawa, ON: Milkweed Editions.Google Scholar
  35. Ward, C. (1978). The child in the city. London: Architectural Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationFaculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of TechnologyMelbourneAustralia

Section editors and affiliations

  • Amy Cutter-Mackenzie
    • 1
  • Karen Malone
    • 2
  • Marianne Krasny
    • 3
  • Hilary Whitehouse
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Education, Gold Coast CampusSouthern Cross UniversityGold CoastAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Educational ResearchWestern Sydney UniversitySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  4. 4.James Cook UniversityCairnsAustralia

Personalised recommendations