Since the Anthropocene concept was introduced at the turn of the millennium, we have seen the return of a dystopian environmental discourse of ecological tipping points, complexity and urgency. In contrast to the hopeful story of sustainable development inherited from the Brundtland Commission and the past 30 years of liberal environmentalism, the Anthropocene is wedded to a language of fear and sorrow in view of irreparable loss of Arctic ice sheets, endangered species, seasonal variations and traditional ways of living. This chapter traces how the Anthropocene debate is taking form in academic circles and challenging the conceptual frame that has guided climate policy-making during the past three decades. The debates covered in this chapter are diverse, complex and troubling and lack any clear blueprints for global development. Rather than promising more prosperous, more just, and more secure futures for all, the Anthropocene places us at an uncomfortable juncture where irreversible loss and damage has already occurred. Where this environmental rethinking will lead us is too early to tell. Contemporary Anthropocene debates contain a broad mix of dystopian scenarios, social critique, novel ethical claims and challenging ontological propositions. While many of these ideas may never travel beyond the academic seminar room, they demonstrate a search for green hope and radical political energy in a time when nature no longer offers a stable backdrop to global development. As such they warrant further analytical scrutiny and debate.
Eva Lövbrand and Johannes Stripple
This chapter explores what kinds of critical policy studies may transpire from Michel Foucault’s nominalist engagement with traditional political concepts such as power, government and the state. We argue that Foucault’s work paves the way for a decentred form of policy analysis that asks how we govern and are governed in micro-settings including at the level of the individual subject. The focus on the ‘how of governing’ stems from a rejection of any a priori understanding of the distribution of power or location of government, and arises instead from an interest in, and awareness of, the historically situated practices, rationalities and identities by which governing operates. Viewed in this manner, Foucault-inspired policy studies neither offer us a substantive theory about the forces that shape public policy, nor does it tell us what constitutes public policy (e.g. actors, interests, structures). The role of the analyst is instead to critically interrogate how these political spaces come about, how power operates through them, and, ultimately, how they could be different.