Who is in charge here? Concepts of nature, culture and agency in the face of the ecological crisis

The ecological crisis has far-reaching effects and manifests itself in many different ways. This is also clear from the controversies and debates it is sparking: There are still voices that play down the predicted consequences of climate change or relativize or completely deny the influence of human activity on the climate. Others, on the other hand, are firmly convinced that the consequences of climate change will be devastating and that the causes (and solutions) are to be found in human activity alone.



Since the noughties, the term Anthropocene has been used to describe the significant influence of humans on geological processes. However, as humans cannot be held responsible for the ecological crisis per se, the economic system in particular comes into focus. Following the tradition of historical materialism, the concept of the Capitalocene therefore concretizes the ecological crisis as a direct consequence of the capitalist economy based on growth. This is followed by critiques of progress narratives and concepts such as post-growth and degrowth. What these ideas have in common is that they focus on the human being as a subject capable of action. Dichotomously, however, nature and all non-human entities are then assumed to be passive objects for which humans bear responsibility. Thus, they also implicitly follow the topos of modernity, which figures nature as something that is potentially under human control due to its passivity.



Various heterogeneous approaches are referred to as “New Materialisms”, which oppose this by also attributing agency to the non-human. They tend to attempt to dissolve juxtapositions such as those between nature and culture or subject and object. Instead of a division that clearly distinguishes between active and passive entities, the idea of a network-like interconnectedness of all existing beings takes its place. According to the “new materialisms”, humans and non-humans are related to each other. They have a reciprocal effect on each other and only ever produce new facts together.



The different ways of seeing and acting point to the thematic complexity and conflicts that are currently shaping society with regard to itself and the future of its environment. As part of the conference, we therefore want to look at various materialist discourses and discuss their conceptions of nature, culture and agency. The focus will be on their potentials as well as possible difficulties with regard to their practicability in the face of the ecological crisis. What could such conceptions contribute to change in this regard and what perhaps not? What role does the way in which they are communicated and presented artistically or in the media play in all of this? The aim of the conference is to make a contribution to bringing theory and practice together.