Donna Haraway’s “Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin” challenges how we talk or think about problems in the everyday world. Haraway wants people to think outside of the everyday Anthropocene and suggests that we need to build connections with the inhuman that surrounds our everyday. Since the beginning of time, when regarding the ever-changing planet that is earth, humans saw themselves as the “main character,” for a more modernized term. Haraway challenges this way of thinking and suggests that we need to think about how systems like capitalism play an important role in the disconnection we have with the living organisms around us. Haraway refers to this as capitalocene.

The term plantationocene is used by Haraway to ask people to think about the historical impact of plantations and colonialism. Haraway says, “The spread of seed-dispersing plants millions of years before human agriculture was aplanet-changing development, and so were many other revolutionary evolutionary ecological developmental historical events.” Haraway reaffirms that before humans started agriculture on earth, there were plants that also affected and played apart in shaping the earth. She is asking us to consider these living organisms as well when thinking about the problems that happen in the world. These living organisms are as important as we are. 

Haraway uses the term chthulucene as a better alternative for the Anthropocene. Where humans can make Kin with all the forms of life on earth to creative better relationships that can help the problems that are happening in the everyday world. Haraway says, “One way to live and die well as mortal critters in the Chthulucene is to join forces to reconstitute refugeesto make possible partial and robust biological-cultural-political-technological recuperation and recomposition, which mustinclude mourning irreversible
losses.”  Haraway wants people to work together to restore spaces where different ecosystems can thrive. Doing this means that changes will need to be made where we will need to reconsider the health of organisms and make active connections that will lead us to understand what they need. It will also ask us to reconsider politics and the tools of innovation we use, and this will lead to us losing ecosystems and making grand changes to our everyday. In conclusion, Haraway is suggesting that to better understand the problems of everyday life, we need to make connections with all the living organisms around us as well as actively work on improving all aspects of everyday life. 

I see a connection in Haraway’s ideas with Amitav Ghosh’s “The Great Derangement: Climate Change and the Unthinkable.” Ghosh critiques  contemporary literature and culture for failing to properly address the climate crisis. He argues that modern storytelling doesn’t do a good job at capturing the severity of environmental issues, thus failing to inspire the collective action needed to address them. Ghosh asks for a new narrative that better reflects what’s actively happening with the environment and climate.

Both Haraway and Ghosh suggest for a shift in how we think about and respond to our ecological and social crises. Haraway’s asks for a Chthulucene, to rethink our relationships with other life forms and to make more inclusive and supportive connections. Similarly, Ghosh’s call for new literary narratives this resembles Haraway’s push for fresh ways of understanding and engaging with the world.

In conclusion Donna Haraway’s essay challenges the everyday Anthropocene by proposing different terms that reflect a more complex and interconnected understanding of our environmental and social issues. Her ideas make us rethink our place in the world and work towards a more personal and collaborative approach in regards to global issues, much like Ghosh’s call for a more effective and reflective literary response to climate change.

When I first started reading Octavia Butler’s Parable of the Sower, I wasn’t sure what to think about it. The matter of fact, blunt, almost flat style of writing is not what I am used to. After getting through this first set of chapters though, I am beginning to understand this to be and intentional and useful tool from Butler. I was struggling to age the main character when I first started reading because of the tone of narration, then when I learned her age, it clicked for me that of course she is going to sound older. She is living in a world where she had to grow up very fast.

There is a theme in these first couple of chapters of how quickly the children must age. The main character herself is 15/16 and very intelligent and observant. She is all to aware of the state of the world and where it is heading, and is having her own ideas about what religion is to her. She was taking care of other children, according to her, when she was only one year old. The children in this book are living through extreme times, and they simply must take on more responsibility from a young age than any child should need to. So, when Butler is writing this character’s internal thoughts and dialogue, it is in fact supposed to be a very serious tone. It emphasizes and helps shape the world-building in the story.

In chapter 5 there is a scene in which the main character, Lauren, tries to tell her best friend about the things she believes and the future she sees for the world. This discussion scene (and the following scene where she talks to her father) reminded me of the excerpt we read of Ghosh’s The Great Derangement, in that people have a hard time accepting reality and looking at a scary future in the face. And because they have a hard time with this, they are unable to prepare themselves for it. Lauren heartily believes in preparedness, and simply does not understand why other’s don’t. Lauren’s internal monologue for the duration of the conversation is wise, astute, and clever in a way that had me, as the reader, in total agreement. The “learning to die” theme is also playing a role here. Lauren can’t understand why people are so unable to let go of the past, why they want it back so badly even though it got them to the point they are at. Their unwillingness to move forward, even for the sake of survival, baffles her.

Butler sowed in these themes so effortlessly in these first few chapters, in large part, simply by using this specific narrative tone on such a young character. I see why this work is so influential to writers like LeMenager and Ghosh. Though is was written around 30 years ago, it is very much applicable to modern day’s mindset of denial and fear in regards to climate change.

In The Great Derangement: Climate Change and the Unthinkable, Amitav Ghosh argues that literature (specifically modern literature) is insufficient/unequipped to deal with the complicated issues of climate change. Ghosh argues that “The problem does not arise out of a lack of information: there are surely very few writers today who are oblivious to the current disturbances in climate systems the world over. Yet, it is a striking fact that when novelists do choose to write about climate change it is almost always outside of fiction,” (7) therefore when writers do decide to focus on climate change in the genre of fiction, it is not done well. His argument also goes beyond literature and questions how societies think and respond to environmental crises, in this case, the crisis being climate change.

Ghosh further argues that climate change is way too complicated to be fully explained by traditional ways of thinking and writing. Modern literature does not do a good job of addressing this issue because it sticks to familiar genres/styles of writing that cannot handle the huge scale of the climate crisis. He thinks that modern stories focus too much on personal experiences/ simple plots instead of focusing on the bigger issues. Ghosh also states that “Indeed, it could even be said that fiction that deals with climate change is almost by definition not of the kind that is taken seriously by serious literary journals: the mere mention of the subject is often enough to relegate a novel or a short story to the genre of science fiction. It is as though in the literary imagination climate change were somehow akin to extraterrestrials or interplanetary travel.” (6) This leads to another one of his arguments that while sci-fi has the potential to tackle the huge scale of climate change, it does not do so effectively. This is one of the specific examples of his larger argument that modern literature fails to fully capture the complexity of climate change.

Ghosh sees science fiction as a great fit for dealing with climate change because it has many flexibilities in the genre such as imagining/predicting the future and exploring different possibilities/outcomes all while tackling the issue. He thinks sci-fi is an ideal genre for addressing climate change, which requires new ways of thinking and storytelling. However, he also points out several problems in how the genre currently approaches the issue. For example, Ghosh states  “Inasmuch as the non-human was written about at all, it was not within the mansion of serious fiction but rather in the outhouses to which science fiction and fantasy had been banished.” (67) Human activity has been the “main driver” in climate change, which is why writers tend to focus on humans and their individual stories, which defeats the purpose of confronting the issues of climate change.

Going back to the discussion we had in class, many argued that science fiction is unrealistic because of the many insane scenarios, such as aliens, three-headed monsters, etc, and if sci-fi is unrealistic, how could you tackle the issue of climate change in this genre? However, others argue that science fiction is one of the most fitting genres to talk about climate change because it allows freedom that other genres do not allow. While I am not a fan of science fiction, I do believe it is a good genre to tackle climate change because it allows literary freedom. For example, one writer can write a sci-fi novel on climate change by predicting the future and showing the outcome of the world if humans do not do anything to try to stop climate change. Another can write a novel showing the positive outcome/future of the world if humans did become aware of the issue causing climate change and fought to make a change. Sci-fi is a liberating genre that allows flexibility, which is a great fit for writing about climate change. The freedom that comes with science fiction should be taken advantage of to its fullest potential to teach people about the affect climate change has on society.

Ghosh’s idea of the Great Derangement and the way that we like to think of ourselves as aware and adaptable while we adapt in all the wrong ways is similar to some themes emerging in Butler’s Parable of the Sower. Ghosh first mentions the “great derangement” by saying that this era that we live in, “which so congratulates itself on its self awareness, will come to be known as the time of the Great Derangement” (10). When he brings up novels and “serious fiction”, which iterate everyday life and make themselves relatable to the reader, it reminds me a lot of Barthes’ reality effect–the idea that, sometimes, the importance of everyday objects in novels is that they are immune to any kind of symbolic or sign/signifier deconstruction. Barthes’ example was of a barometer on a wall that seems to serve no purpose other than to render a real barometer, which was supposed to mean that the novel is touching on real life. In a similar way, Ghosh’s category of serious fiction novels are novels that bring “everyday moves into the foreground”. It seems that in this way, we like to think that we are so acutely aware of our lives. The logic might go something like: if authors are spending time and effort describing this pointless barometer on a wall, it is because we as people find such acute awareness of our surroundings so valuable! It is a habit we have to be so self-conscious! 

However, the trouble of such short-sightedness arises in contexts like that of Lauren’s life in Octavia Butler’s Parable of the Sower. At first it seems like Lauren’s father, or even the people who make up Lauren’s community, are working towards the so-called bigger picture, when in reality they are only adapting to what is right in front of them and only doing so when there really is no other choice. For example, teaching the children how to shoot might be a productive use of time given the dangers of thieves, dogs, and killers outside of the community wall, but it is only in response to this surrounding violence that they become aware of self defense. When Lauren tries to bring up the importance of making your own food, preparing emergency packs, or learning to live outside of the wall because “[they] need to learn what [they] can to stay alive while there’s time” she gets into trouble for fear mongering and paranoia (Butler 64). It does seem quite deranged that, in a society so bent on being aware of how they look (the dirtier the better so as not to attract attention), how tall and strong their community wall is, the value of water and fruit, or the start of a night watch committee, they seem to be taking everything one day at a time. All this “preparation” and they don’t seem prepared for the robbery of Ms. Simms, or the killing of little Amy, or even how to deal with Lauren’s hyperempathy. It seems that they just take the hits as they come. How can a community so bent on “self awareness” as Ghosh would label it, be so ostracizing and in denial of Lauren’s actual self awareness and push for change? 

It seems so easy for us as outsiders to be on Lauren’s side in the context of this dystopian clifi novel, but at the same time–and really confusingly– I find myself as a person living in the world probably contributing to Lauren’s, and really only be able to focus on things like Bartes’ barometer on the wall. So far, Parable of the Sower has made me think about the ways in which I act and behave shortsightedly without realizing, because the real “big picture” is difficult to grasp but also hard to find a space to communicate about it with–a struggle that Lauren faces as well.