Explores how modernity defines nature's role in society, implying a need for rethinking political frameworks.
The environment and climate change have achieved global, imaginary and institutional, centrality. Yet, despite efforts by social movements and intellectuals to change the status of ‘nature’ in social life, its unsurpassable exteriority in relation to ‘society’ remains a defining feature of modernity. While the imaginary is to a large extent fluid, these are core elements that hardly change, and by the same token are hard to change, one of the reasons being that they are crystalized in institutions, which contributes to their recursiveness and reiteration. This article explores the reasons for this, reconstructing the modern perspective, the role of subjectivity in it and some alternative views while focusing on the political dimension of modernity. It then goes on to tackle contemporary issues. If we aim to bring about a different world, and this does not exclude recourse to different civilizational alternatives, I argue that it is mostly from within the modern imaginary and institutional framework that we must face up to present challenges. I also suggest that the concepts of collective subjectivity and materiality may contribute to a renewed understanding of these questions within a critical theory perspective.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
José Maurício Dọmingues (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: