(ENV2) Pathways towards just multi-species futures

The impacts of the biodiversity crisis on human-nonhuman relationships are increasingly being felt. For communities at the forefront of climate change, the loss of plant and animal species and the spread of invasive species are particularly acute. In this context, intersecting environmental and humanitarian crises require bold and ambitious action at a time of increasing uncertainty. As such, there is an urgent need for social science research to analyze the mechanisms precipitating these declines and the collective resources required to realize sustainable and just multi-species futures. This session invited submissions that are situated in or across environmental studies, animal studies, sociology, feminist and queer studies, and Indigenous research. The discussion will further our collective efforts to transcend disciplinary boundaries in the pursuit of hopeful and future-oriented solutions.

Organizers: Valerie Berseth, Carleton University, Christine Beaudoin, Université de l'Ontario français; Chairs: Valerie Berseth, Carleton University, Christine Beaudoin, Université de l'Ontario français

Presentations

Nicholas Scott, Simon Fraser University

Toward a Sociology of Human Supremacism

How did so many humans come to think that their species was better than all the rest? Why do Canadians obsess about artificial intelligence and ChatGPT, yet ignore the astounding intelligences of other animals, plants and fungi? What social and moral implications arise from our species causing a mass extinction? If human, humanism and humanity fail as inclusive conveyors of moral worth, unjustly denied to many marginalized humans and detrimental to even more other-than-human beings, what alternatives can re-animate and re-frame moral worthiness? Can the supremacist’s tools––citizenship, denizenship, sovereignty and territory––be used to disassemble the supremacist’s house? Can sociologists really challenge hate and sustain “shared” futures without problematizing the interlocking and intersecting practices, institutions and infrastructures of violence and denigration weighing down both human and other-than-human persons in mutually reinforcing, if differential ways? What can sociologists learn from trees, fungi, wheat, crows, dogs, orcas, cats, bees and multispecies communities about challenging fascism and cultivating liberal democracy? With cutting edge western science and multiplicitous Indigenous knowledges both presenting powerful evidence of complex intelligence, consciousness, personhood, subjectivity, linguistic prowess and ethics in other species (and not just animals) on a daily basis, why do so many sociologists still hoard and hold onto society, social practices, social processes, sociality and, of course, “the social” as something sole-authored by, and for, humans? What exciting and weird moral possibilities and ecological–political powers await a sociology (and a “Canada”) that dares to remove its crusty, anthropocentric blinders? These and many other questions are explored in a sociology seminar I am teaching in winter 2024 called “The Death and Life of Human Supremacism” at Simon Fraser University. I’m using the course as a way to start my new research program on human supremacism, which grew quite organically out of my erstwhile research on everyday cycling, nature, and the common good. This paper, after a brief theorization of human supremacism, will focus on results of the seminar, aiming to foreground the lived experiences of the seminar’s participants through a form of collective autoethnography. The seminar is unique, I think, by employing speculative methods to imagine possible futures and anticipatory pre/histories of human supremacism as a way to creep up on, and defamiliarize, the sheer taken- for-grantedness of human supremacism in our present day politics and society.

Éloïse M Tanguay, Université de Montréal

L’ingénierie de la biologie » pour sauver la planète ? : une analyse des représentations du vivant portées par l’imaginaire sociotechnique de la biologie de synthèse

Domaine technoscientifique en pleine expansion, la biologie de synthèse a comme objectif de fabriquer des entités biologiques détenant une application commerciale. En plus de ses visées économiques, les promoteurs de la biologie de synthèse la présentent sous l’étiquette du « développement durable » en annonçant qu’elle constitue une solution aux enjeux engendrés par la crise écologique. Ce type de promesse semble s’inscrire en porte-à-faux avec le discours ambiant relatif aux changements climatiques. Ce dernier insiste plutôt sur les effets néfastes des activités industrielles sur l’ensemble du vivant et appelle à une transformation radicale des modes de production et de consommation contemporains. Redoublant d’efforts pour esquiver la remise en cause du mode de développement industriel, la biologie de synthèse promet aux sociétés contemporaines un mode de développement durable fondé sur la manipulation du vivant (Flocco et Guyonvarch, 2020). Si certains travaux mettent en relief cette tendance générale, le rapport au vivant qu’elle sous-tend est relativement peu exploré. Celui-ci correspond aux manières dont est imaginé et décrit le vivant dans les discours de la biologie de synthèse. Entre dégradation, protection, modification et exploitation, ce rapport est rendu pour le moins complexe par les développements biotechnologiques. Pour éclairer ce rapport, cet article traite des représentations du vivant portées par l’imaginaire sociotechnique de la biologie de synthèse. Partant de la notion de coproduction entre les technosciences et la société, la sociologue Sheila Jasanoff a développé le cadre d’analyse des « imaginaires sociotechniques ». Ceux-ci, partagés collectivement, portent et propagent certaines visions d’un « futur désirable » (Jasanoff, 2015 : 4) atteignable par des développements technoscientifiques (Jasanoff, 2015.) Fondés sur certaines manières de comprendre le monde, ils sont dépendants d’un contexte social, c’est-à-dire des représentations, des valeurs, des idées, des normes, etc. qui y circulent. C’est à partir de ce contexte que se forment les visions de ce que lavenir devrait être. Il influe alors sur la trajectoire à adopter collectivement pour mettre en œuvre ces visions. Pour approcher l’imaginaire sociotechnique des promesses écologiques de la biologie de synthèse, j’adopte l’angle des métaphores du vivant qu’il sous-tend. Selon la linguistique cognitive de George Lakoff et Mark Johnson, les métaphores permettent de rapporter des concepts abstraits à des expériences plus proches de notre vécu (Lakoff et Johnson, [1980] 2003). Laissant les rôles théorique et heuristique des métaphores de côté, l’objectif est de se pencher sur leur dimension communicative qui en font un phénomène social (Hellsten, 2002). Plus précisément, je me pencherai sur les métaphores qui, à travers leur stabilisation et leur diffusion, participent à la construction de l’imaginaire sociotechnique de la biologie de synthèse. Il s’agit d’abord, avec un retour sociohistorique, d’identifier quelles métaphores ont été au cœur du modèle bioéconomique, c’est-à-dire le cadre politique et économique dans lequel s’inscrit la biologie de synthèse. Cela me permet de montrer que ce domaine, depuis son émergence, s’appuie et reconduit les métaphores machinique et informationnelle du vivant. Je procède ensuite à une analyse des discours médiatiques et publicitaires relatifs aux promesses écologiques de la biologie de synthèse. Au total, 134 articles provenant de magazines de vulgarisation scientifique, d’information économique et de médias généralistes ont été soumis à l’analyse. De plus, l’ensemble du contenu des sites Web de quatre entreprises de biologie de synthèse ont été analysé. Cette analyse discursive montre que les représentations machiniques et informationnelles de la biologie sont au cœur des promesses écologiques de la biologie de synthèse. Plus encore, cette analyse montre que la volonté de mettre les processus biologiques en ressource se décline elle-même en deux tendances. D’une part, le vivant est posé dans les termes d’une matière première inerte et malléable. D’autre part, il est représenté comme une entité active qui peut être mise au travail. L’imaginaire de la biologie de synthèse relève donc d’une radicalisation de la volonté d’englober les processus biologiques dans la production industrielle. Les promesses écologiques de ce domaine apparaissent subordonnées à cette visée. À l’heure des défis posés par la crise écologique, cette recherche participe à identifier et comprendre les implications du discours technoscientifique dans l’imaginaire des sociétés contemporaines. Plus particulièrement, elle met en lumière le primat des intérêts économiques dans les promesses écologiques provenant d’un domaine biotechnologique, soit la biologie de synthèse.

Manuel Vallee, University of Auckland

Unpacking Cultural Conceptions of Rivers: A contrast between New Zealand's Whanganui River and Canada's St-Lawrence River.

A symbolic-interactionist perspective emphasizes that culture plays a central role in how we view environmental entities (such as trees, rivers, soil, etc.), and that these views, in turn, profoundly shape how we interact with those entities. For instance, if culture inclines us to conceptualize trees as providers of oxygen, erosion control, biodiversity, carbon dioxide absorption, and other indispensable eco-system services, we will be inclined to be more reverent towards trees, reduce activities that harm them, and pursue actions to protect them for current and future generations. Conversely, conceptions of trees that do not consider their numerous services makes people more inclined to treat them in utilitarian terms (such as mere lumber resources), or, worse yet, obstacles to personal beautification agendas (such as eliminating trees to fashion million dollar views). Given culture’s significant role in shaping environmental behaviour, it behooves sociologists to study dominant conceptions of environmental entities, and the impacts they have on our behaviour. A symbolic interactionist perspective also encourages us to view dominant conceptions as social constructions, which includes understanding who seeks to create/shape the dominant conceptions, as well as the strategies and tactics they use to achieve their ends. Useful in this regard is Gary Alan Fine’s “naturework” concept, which refers to the everyday work that people pursue to convert the environment into culture. While Stella Capek calls for a specific focus on the naturework that dominant institutions (such as corporations, media companies, and government agents) carry out to perpetuate dominant conceptions, there is also a need to understand the naturework carried out by citizen groups and others who contest dominant conceptions. Lastly, there is a need to understand how struggles over dominant conceptions are mediated by contextual factors, such as cultural history, legal systems, and economic activity.  This paper will endeavour to do three things. First, it will illuminate the dominant conceptions of rivers in the Euro-centric countries by comparing conceptions associated with Canada’s St-Lawrence river with those associated with New Zealand’s Whanganui river. The Whanganui is a unique case as it first river in the world to be granted legal personhood (in 2017). This uniqueness helps cast in relief the conceptions associated with one of the world’s largest rivers, and will tease out the taken-for-granted assumptions about rivers in the Euro-centric world. Second, the paper will discuss the implications of the different conceptions, including those for environmental behaviors (including polluting activities), as well as implications for environmental, cultural, and social sustainability. Third, the paper will examine the processes behind the social construction of the conceptions. This will include tracing who was behind the Whanganui case, why they sought legal personhood for the river, what strategies they pursued towards that end, and what enabled them to succeed. As well, it will include a discussion of social forces and processes that perpetuate the dominant conception of the St-Lawrence river. Finally, the paper will consider what would be required for the St-Lawrence and other rivers in the Euro-centric world to one day gain legal personhood. The paper will contribute to the “Culture and the Environment” section by illuminating the profound impact that culture plays in shaping both environmental behaviour and our capacity to live sustainably. As well, by examining the Whanganui example, the paper will present a pathway through which dominant cultural conceptions of nature can be transformed to reduce our environmental destructiveness and increase our capacity to live sustainably.

Annette Louise Bickford, York University

Orca yacht ramming: Rethinking biodiversity extinction from historical perspectives of "participating consciousness"

An endangered species, killer whales are “orcanizing”. Initiated in 2020 by matriarch White Gladis “in a critical moment of agony”, there have over 500 cases of disabling and sometimes sinking yachts. This began in high-trafficked areas off the Iberian coast, but incidents have recently been reported off the Shetland Islands in Scotland [1]. Commercial fishing practices, along with underwater noise from industry and military activity jeopardize orcas’ food security, yet marine neuroscientists and animal behavior experts regularly attribute the behavior to “fun” and “play”. I am interested in exploring historical worldviews that inform the assumptions we make about such behavior we do not understand. Cartesian dualism permeates Western culture, forming a fault-line which runs through its entire conceptual system, redefining humans, once direct participants, “as only minimally and accidentally connected to the earth, and masking the reality of catastrophic biodiversity extinction. For most of human history people exercised a “participating consciousness”—engaging with the natural world in ensconced, symbiotic, often animistic ways, regarding the whole of nature as alive and powerful. Politics and epistemology reinforced each other to bring shifts in consciousness, and our current perception, which instrumentalizes nature as sets of inert commodity resources, and culturally obscures nonhuman animals through hyper-separation, is indicative of a metamorphosis that became influential in Europe by the early modern period. The Scientific Revolution propelled technological innovation. Technology in turn instrumentalized scientific ideas, enabling surplus production, monetized by the rise of industrial capitalism. By the twentieth century instrumental rationality contributed to the rejection of holistic views of nature; biocentric mutuality became unthinkable. How might orcas’ empathic collective cultural organization inform our ways of looking at ourselves and Nature that have proven disastrous? What are the epistemic constraints of our individual and collective ability to imagine other than human perspectives?

Christine Beaudoin, Université de l'Ontario français

More-than-human conservation: A social-ecological participatory approach to change our relationships with biodiversity

In the context of Anthropocene, which correlates with environmental crises and wicked problems, working together is seen as a way to simultaneously improve both social justice and ecological outcomes. Calls for collaboration can be answered with transdisciplinary, participatory approaches that value different worldviews and work for a diversity of actors to be included in the co-production of knowledge, programs, and policies. Furthermore, implementing a social-ecological lens is useful to make sense of the complexity of environmental issues. It can mobilize transdisciplinary participation to consider social and ecological relationships. For example, collaborative mapping of social-ecological systems in participatory workshops with diverse actors can facilitate social learning and trust among participants as well as lead to identification of leverage points and recommendations for improving biodiversity outcomes in ways that align with local communities. However, questions can also be raised about this collaborative turn, and more specifically what role it leaves for non-humans: the very animals, microorganisms, plants, birds, fish, insects, and waters whom we are trying to protect. In fact, there is a paradox within biodiversity conservation. People do this work to preserve the environment and out of passion for nature, yet the relationships between humans and non-humans in this context are often tense and at times even conflictual or violent (Beaudoin 2022, doctoral thesis). Calls for collaboration lead to meetings with a diversity of stakeholders, yet they are often held in office spaces where other species and abiotic elements from the environment are excluded. I thus mobilize a relational approach to reflect on the place of non-humans in science, in communities, and in decision-making processes that directly concern them and their well-being. This brings into question the positivist and dualist onto-epistemology that underlies conservation research and practice. There is thus a need to further unpack the tensions and frictions between humans and non-humans in the context of biodiversity conservation. Different pathways are possible to explore how to address these tensions with non-humans in relation to the biodiversity crisis. First, we need to value and make space for worldviews that relate to non-humans in more egalitarian terms, including consideration of local Indigenous worldviews and teachings. Second, we can experiment with the concept of more-than-human coproduction and the living labs framework to assess the boundaries of transspecies collaboration. Finally, we should explore lessons from the collaborative and see what is transferable in order to improve our relationships with non-humans. Such work requires a critical analysis of collaboration, which is not a panacea. This work builds on research projects conducting applied conservation social science in Ontario. More specifically, I present two ongoing projects: (1) landowner engagement for biodiversity conservation in Northumberland County, and (2) expert elicitation to support the Long Point Walsingham Point Forest Priority Place. Using mixed methods and participatory approaches, I develop analyses and recommendations to improve social-ecological alignment in various systems. My own participation in applied conservation research also allows me to gain a better understanding of the onto-epistemological assumptions behind this work. Through reflexivity and autoethnographic analysis, my applied work thus feeds my critical analysis of conservation research and practice. I build on science studies and ecofeminism and call for more ethical and more just conservation research and practice: that of more-than-human conservation.