The political philosophy of environmental loss and power

Title: The political philosophy of environmental loss and power
Source document: Pro-Fil. 2022, vol. 23, iss. 2, pp. 1-14
  • ISSN
    1212-9097 (online)
Type: Article

Notice: These citations are automatically created and might not follow citation rules properly.

The word Anthropocene, referring to a new era of humanity's uncontrolled exercise of power over the Earth as a geophysical unit, could be translated using a cognitive metaphor as "the Age of Loss". We have gained such power that we are unable to adjust or even fully track its manifestations. The relation between loss and power is continuous in all the basic areas of materialization of socio-political concepts: in politics, in economics, in law and the judiciary, in legislation, environmental protection, etc. The philosophy of loss and power is inseparable from economic concerns. The entirety of Western civilization is built on the economic calculus of profit and loss, whose results are directly transformed into decisions of power made by the administrative, political, ownership and power-broking elites. The environmental and climate crisis is therefore also a crisis of privilege of one group over others. The question for politics is which political means can one use to achieve a state of uncorrupted voluntary depriviligization. This level of prosperity will itself be the subject of environmental self-limitation, being presented as "loss". It will be posed as a political problem with the intention of depoliticizing the subject and inequality of civilizations; precisely in accordance with the posed political problem of democracy, which has already uncovered the basic connection: liberalism won't make a poor country rich.
[1] Anter, A. (2017), Theorien der Macht zur Einführung, Hamburg: Junius.

[2] Arendt, H. (1970), Macht und Gewalt, München: Piper.

[3] Bernardy, J. (2014). Warum Macht produktiv ist: genealogische Blickschule mit Foucault, Nietzsche und Wittgenstein, Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink.

[4] Crozier, M. J., Huntington, S. P., & Watanuki, J. (1975), The Crisis of Democracy. New York: New York University Press.

[5] Foucault, M. (1997), Il faut défendre la société. Cours au collège de France 1976, Paris: Seuil.

[6] Geuss, R. (2008), Philosophy and Real Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

[7] Han, B.­‐Ch. (2011), Topologie der Gewalt, Berlin: Matthes & Seitz.

[8] Hardt, M., Negri, A. (2000), Empire, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

[9] Hardt, M., Negri, A. (2004), Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire, London, New York: Penguin.

[10] Imbusch, P. (1998), Macht und Herrschaft. Sozialwissenschaftliche Theorien und Konzeptionen, Wiesbaden: Opladen.

[11] Kupke, Chr. (2008), Macht und/oder Gewalt. Politikphilosophische Interventionen. In: Krause, R., Rölli, M., Macht. Begriff und Wirkung in der politischen Philosophie der Gegenwart, Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 63–84.

[12] Luhmann. (2012). Macht, Niklas Luhmann. (4. Aufl.). UVK Verl.-Ges.

[13] Mouffe, Ch. (1993), Rawls: Political Philosophy without Politics. In: Ibid, The Return of the Political, London, New York: Verso, 41–59.

[14] Plessner, H. (1931), Macht und menschliche Natur. Ein Versuch zur Anthropologie der geschichtlichen Weltansicht, Berlin: Junker und Dünnhaupt.

[15] Plessner, H. (1962), Die Emanzipation der Macht. In: týž, Macht und menschliche Natur. Gesammelte Schriften V. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 2003, s. 261–282.

[16] Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice, Cambridge: Belknap Press.

[17] Rosa, H. (2018), Unverfügbarkeit, Wien, Salzburg: Residenz Verlag.

[18] Routledge, B. (2014), Archaeology and state theory: subjects and objects of power, London, New York: Bloomsbury.

[19] Weber, M. (1972), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen.