read for understanding of world-ecology as well as nature beyond the binary
In Jason W. Moore’s Capitalism in the Web of Life, readers are introduced to the idea of world-ecology as it relates to capitalism. He describes the book as being “about how the mosaic of relations that we call capitalism work through nature; and how nature works through that more limited zone, capitalism.” Pointing towards the constructed world we live in and our hand in building it, Moore highlights this connection in an effort to tell a history leading to the present, while also destroying common tendencies of dualism as seen in Nature/Society which separates us from our environment.
Moore actually argues that capitalism is “a way of organizing nature” not an economic or social system. This isn’t to say that capitalism isn’t economic or social, but that it is all so inextricably linked to each other within nature. It is this mindset that builds the study of world-ecology.
As part of practicing world-ecology, it is encouraged to adopt a post-cartesian worldview of relational thinking, to see the metaphysical (mind/soul, capitalism) and physical (body, nature) as linked—or at least inseparable as they exist affecting each other. Moore uses the term cartesian-binary in reference to body/mind, but also uses it as a more general critique towards dualism much in the way we use the descriptor ‘binary’ (which for me was picked up from critiques on gender-binary). Both coming from and building this critique on dualism, Moore argues that capitalism’s viewing of nature as external “is a fundamental condition of capital accumulation”, therefore worthy of unpacking.
As part of moving forward and understanding of our (historic) role within nature must be made, Moore uses the analogy of beavers building dams and humans building empires, both engineers within nature. This world-ecology, a study of connections also “says that the relationality of nature implies a new method that grasps humanity in nature as a world historical process”. I see this as a direct call to action as it puts the power in the now. In the muddled poetics of my brain understanding time (cause and effect): We are creating history, to put it simply, what happens now will have happened soon. History is evidence of action, we have no influence on the past yet we live in its effects. I see this view as a reminder of just how important the present is in shaping the future. How can I use my art to create the future I want?
Moore then goes on to argue that Nature/Society dualism is a culprit of much of the violence we see in the world as it is complicit in the modernity that capitalism has created. The solution (or first step(s)) is to recognize this and when/where it appears in our lives. Linking to both carbon footprint calculators and leave no trace/stay on the trail language Moore zeros in on the term footprint when people speak of our impact on nature asking if “the image of nature as passive mud and dirt—a place where one leaves a footprint—really the best metaphor to capture the vitality of the web of life?”, after all “humans make environments and environments make humans”. We can combat this dualism in how we apply distinction in analysis of us and the nature we are a part of by highlighting connections. This speaks to the intermedia approach within my work, as where my art and research exists is between two nodes, the cause and effect.
The other piece of relevant information with the text comes in the form of Oikeios, a term in ancient Greek meaning “belonging to the household”, an honorific. The way Moore uses it makes me define it as ‘world-ecology in motion’. If world-ecology is the study of systems and all that relates to one another, including the cause and effect relationships of actions within—then oikeios is human evolution, it is these systems in a living and changing state, over time. This is important in understanding humans as both product and producer, making clear our lack of agency in what got us here as well as our power to change it. Oikeios allows us to ask “how is humanity unified in the web of life?”. This makes me ask myself in what ways do I see unification/commonality by way of internal/personal research? I believe that the nature of this mini-golf construction and play lends itself to focusing first on the individual, and would therefore benefit from not trying to look at the world in broad strokes (the way an “outside observer” might). This competition of attention, seeing the world as one whole, while understanding the singular human is tough to juggle, but I think world-ecology provides a good framework to guide research.
bibliography (for this and more)