Projecting utopian thoughtThe conceptualization of the “good Anthropocene” in Kim Stanley Robinson’s "The Ministry for the Future" (2020)

  1. Tejero-Marín, Ana 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Salamanca
    info

    Universidad de Salamanca

    Salamanca, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02f40zc51

Revista:
Ilha do desterro: a journal of language and literature = revista de língua e literatura

ISSN: 0101-4846,  2175-8026

Año de publicación: 2023

Título del ejemplar: (Re)creating possible futures or alternative presents through the arts

Volumen: 76

Número: 2

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5007/2175-8026.2023.E92559 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Ilha do desterro: a journal of language and literature = revista de língua e literatura

Resumen

While the Anthropocene has traditionally been associated with apocalyptic images, the notion of the good Anthropocene, widely criticized since its origin, has emerged as its utopian counterpart. In his novel The Ministry for the Future (2020), Kim Stanley Robinson explicitly uses the name “good Anthropocene” to refer to the state of the world at the end of the story, more sustainable and equitable. This article examines the utopian and dystopian connotations of the (good) Anthropocene and analyzes how Robinson utilizes the term in his narrative; in particular, it focuses on his employment of narrative structure to convey the multiplicity of the Anthropocene, his preoccupation with discerning the socio-cultural origins of the epoch and his intention of conveying the positive future of the story as achievable through active hope and collaboration.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Asafu-Adjaye, John, et al. An Ecomodernist Manifesto. 2015, http://www.ecomodernism.org/manifesto-english.
  • Bennett, Elena M., et al. “Bright Spots: Seeds of a Good Anthropocene.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol. 14, no. 8, 2016, pp. 441–48, https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1309.
  • “Climate and Weather Extremes in 2022 Show Need for More Action.” World Metereological Organization, 23 Dec. 2022, https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/climate-and-weather-extremes-2022-show-need-more-action.
  • Collard, Rosemary-Claire, et al. “The Moderns’ Amnesia in Two Registers.” Environmental Humanities, vol. 7, no. 1, 2016, pp. 227–32, https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3616425.
  • Crist, Eileen. “The Reaches of Freedom: A Response to An Ecomodernist Manifesto.” Environmental Humanities, vol. 7, no. 1, 2016, pp. 245–54, https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3616452.
  • Crutzen, Paul J., and Eugene F. Stoermer. “The ‘Anthropocene.’” Global Change Newsletter, no. 41, May 2000, pp. 17–18.
  • Dalby, Simon. “Framing the Anthropocene: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” The Anthropocene Review, vol. 3, no. 1, 2016, pp. 33–51, https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019615618681.
  • Davis, Heather, and Zoe Todd. “On the Importance of a Date, or Decolonizing the Anthropocene.” ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, vol. 16, no. 4, 2017, pp. 761–80.
  • Ellis, Erle. “The Planet of No Return. Human Resilience on an Artificial Earth.” The Breakthrough Journal, no. 2, Fall 2011, pp. 37–44.
  • Hafner, Robert. “The Anthropocene: Thought Styles, Controversies and Their Expansions. A Review.” Die Erde, vol. 153, no. 3, 2022, pp. 149–61, https://doi.org/10.12854/erde-2022-619.
  • Hamilton, Clive. Defiant Earth: The Fate of Humans in the Anthropocene. Allen & Unwin, 2017.
  • Hamilton, Clive. “The Theodicy of the ‘Good Anthropocene.’” Environmental Humanities, vol. 7, no. 1, 2016, pp. 233–38, https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3616434.
  • Haraway, Donna. “Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin.” Environmental Humanities, vol. 6, 2015, pp. 159–65, https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3615934.
  • Heise, Ursula K. “Science Fiction and the Time Scales of the Anthropocene.” ELH, vol. 86, no. 2, 2019, pp. 275–304, https://doi.org/10.1353/elh.2019.0015.
  • Horn, Eva, and Hannes Bergthaller. The Anthropocene: Key Issues for the Humanities. Routledge, 2020.
  • IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge UP, 2022, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.
  • Jameson, Fredric. Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fictions. Verso, 2005.
  • Johns-Putra, Adeline. “Climate Change in Literature and Literary Studies: From Cli‐fi, Climate Change Theater and Ecopoetry to Ecocriticism and Climate Change Criticism.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, vol. 7, 2016, pp. 266–82, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.385.
  • Kunnas, Jan. “Storytelling: From the Early Anthropocene to the Good or the Bad Anthropocene.” The Anthropocene Review, vol. 4, no. 2, 2017, pp. 136–50, https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019617725538.
  • Latour, Bruno. “Fifty Shades of Green.” Environmental Humanities, vol. 7, no. 1, 2016, pp. 219–25, https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3616416.
  • Malm, Andreas. Fossil Capital: The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming. Verso, 2016.
  • Malm, Andreas, and Alf Hornborg. “The Geology of Mankind? A Critique of the Anthropocene Narrative.” The Anthropocene Review, vol. 1, no. 1, 2014, pp. 62–69, https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019613516291.
  • McKibben, Bill. “It’s Not Science Fiction.” The New York Review of Books, 17 Dec. 2020, https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2020/12/17/kim-stanley-robinson-not-science-fiction/.
  • McPhearson, Timon, et al. “Radical Changes Are Needed for Transformations to a Good Anthropocene.” Npj Urban Sustainability, vol. 1, no. 5, 2021, pp. 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00017-x.
  • Moore, Jason W. “The Capitalocene, Part I: On the Nature and Origins of Our Ecological Crisis.” The Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 44, no. 3, 2017, pp. 594–630, https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1235036.
  • Robinson, Kim Stanley. 2312. Orbit, 2012.
  • Robinson, Kim Stanley. Blue Mars. Spectra, 2003.
  • Robinson, Kim Stanley. Green Mars. Spectra, 2003.
  • Robinson, Kim Stanley. New York 2140. Orbit, 2017.
  • Robinson, Kim Stanley. Red Mars. Spectra, 2003.
  • Robinson, Kim Stanley. The Ministry for the Future. Orbit, 2020.
  • Shaviro, Steven. “Optimism in the Face of Catastrophe: Kim Stanley Robinson’s The Ministry for the Future.” Studies in the Fantastic, no. 10, 2020, pp. 108–14, https://doi.org/10.1353/sif.2020.0020.
  • Szerszynski, Bronislaw. “Getting Hitched and Unhitched with the Ecomodernists.” Environmental Humanities, vol. 7, no. 1, 2016, pp. 239–44, https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3616443.
  • Whyte, Kyle P. “Indigenous Science (Fiction) for the Anthropocene: Ancestral Dystopias and Fantasies of Climate Change Crises.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, vol. 1, no. 1–2, 2018, pp. 224–42, https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618777621.
  • Yusoff, Kathryn. A Billion Black Anthropocenes or None. U of Minnesota P, 2018.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet