Natura o tecnica? Sars-Cov-2, nuovi materialismi e critica dell’Antropocene

Titolo Rivista SOCIOLOGIA URBANA E RURALE
Autori/Curatori Luigi Pellizzoni
Anno di pubblicazione 2022 Fascicolo 2022/127
Lingua Italiano Numero pagine 13 P. 94-106 Dimensione file 284 KB
DOI 10.3280/SUR2022-127008
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

La pandemia del Sars-CoV-2 sollecita la sociologia dell’ambiente a interrogarsi sugli approcci adeguati a renderne conto. A lungo la disciplina è stata dominata dal dibattito tra realismo e costruttivismo, de facto privilegiando quest’ultimo. La "svolta ontologica" nelle scienze sociali e umane ha portato alla ribalta materialismi anti-dualisti, idonei sulla carta a confrontarsi con un ibrido socio-materiale quale il Sars-CoV-2. Tuttavia, le implicazioni emancipative tratte dalla critica dei dualismi moderni non hanno riscontro in una situazione in cui l’estrazione di valore coincide sempre più con la negazione della distinzione tra natura e tecnica. Il dibattito sull’Antropocene offre una prospettiva utile a fare chiarezza.;

Keywords:Sars-CoV-2, svolta ontologica, materialismo sostenibile, Antropocene, giustizia ambientale, cura

  1. Pellizzoni L. (2021). Prefiguration, subtraction and emancipation. Social Movement Studies, 20(3): 364-379. DOI: 10.1080/14742837.2020.1752169
  2. Poupeau F. (2012). Les Mésaventures de la Critique. Paris: Raisons d’Agir.
  3. Povinelli E. (2016). Geontologies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  4. Puig de la Bellacasa M. (2017). Matters of Care. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  5. Schlosberg D., Coles R. (2016). The new environmentalism of everyday life: sustainability, material flows and movements. Contemporary Political Theory, 15(2): 160-181.
  6. Schlosberg D. (2019). From postmaterialism to sustainable materialism: the environmental politics of practice-based movements. Environmental Politics, special issue: 1-21 DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2019.1587215
  7. Scotti I. (2020). Vento forte. Eolico e professioni della green economy. Napoli: Orthotes.
  8. Smil V. (2017). Energy and Civilization: A History. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  9. Srnicek N., Williams A. (2015). Inventing the Future. London: Verso.
  10. Stengers I. (2017). Autonomy and the intrusion of Gaia. South Atlantic Quarterly, 116(2): 381-400. DOI: 10.1215/00382876-3829467
  11. Svampa M. (2019). Neo-Extractivism in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Thacker E. (2007). The Global Genome. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  13. Vanloqueren G., Baret P.V. (2009). How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Research Policy, 38: 971-983.
  14. Wallace R. (2016). Big Farms Make Big Flu. New York: Monthly Review Press.
  15. Yates L. (2015). Rethinking prefiguration: alternatives, micropolitics and goals in social movements. Social Movement Studies, 14(1): 1-21. DOI: 10.1080/14742837.2013.870883
  16. Clark N., Yusoff K. (2017). Geosocial formations and the Anthropocene. Theory, Culture & Society, 34(2-3): 3-23. DOI: 10.1177/0263276416688946
  17. Clough S. (2003). Beyond Epistemology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  18. Coole D., Frost S. (eds.) (2010). New Materialisms. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  19. Daggett C.N. (2019). The Birth of Energy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  20. Davidson D., Gross M. (eds.) (2018). The Oxford Handbook of Energy and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  21. Acosta A. (2013). Extractivism and neoextractivism: two Sides of the same curse. In Lang. M., Mokrani D. (eds.). Beyond Development. Alternative Visions from Latin America. Amsterdam-Quito: Transnational Institute-Rosa Luxemburg Foundation.
  22. Aronowski L. (2021). Gas guzzling Gaia, or: a prehistory of climate change denialism. Critical Inquiry, 47(2): 306-327. DOI: 10.1086/712129
  23. Barad K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3): 801-831. DOI: 10.1086/345321
  24. Barad K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  25. Bennett J. (2010). Vibrant Matter. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  26. Bonneuil C.; Fressoz J.B. (2016). The Shock of the Anthropocene. London: Verso.
  27. Bosi L., Zamponi L. (2015). Direct social actions and economic crises. Partecipazione e Conflitto, 8(2): 367-391.
  28. Breakthrough Institute (2015). An Ecomodernist Manifesto. -- Testo disponibile al sito: http://www.ecomodernism.org/manifesto.
  29. Buchanan A. (2011). Beyond Humanity? The Ethics of Biomedical Enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  30. Bulle S. (2018). Formes de vie, milieux de vie. La forme-occupation. Multitudes, 71: 168-175.
  31. Chakrabarty D. (2009). The climate of history: four theses. Critical Inquiry, 35 (Winter): 197-222. DOI: 10.1086/596640
  32. Clark N. (2011). Inhuman Nature. London: Sage.
  33. Clark N. (2013). Geoengineering and geologic politics. Environment and Planning A, 45(12): 2825-2832.
  34. Demeulenaere E., Piersante Y. (2020). In or out? Organisational dynamics within European ‘peasant seed’ movements facing opening-up institutions and policies. Journal of Peasant Studies, 47(4): 767-791. DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2020.1753704
  35. Escobar A. (2010). Postconstructivist political ecologies. In Redclift M., Woodgate G. (eds.) The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Second Edition. Cheltenham: Elgar.
  36. Ferdinand M. (2019). Une écologie décoloniale. Paris: Seuil.
  37. Fraser N. (2014). Behind Marx’s hidden abode: for an expanded conception of capitalism. New Left Review, 86 (Mar/Apr): 55-72.
  38. Geels F. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31: 1257-1274.
  39. Gentili D. (2018). Crisi come arte di governo. Macerata: Quodlibet.
  40. Goldman M., Schurman R. (2000). Closing the “Great Divide”: new social theory on society and nature. Annual Review of Sociology, 26: 563-584.
  41. Gross M., Mautz R. (2015). Renewable Energies. London: Routledge.
  42. Grosz E. (2011). Becoming Undone. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  43. Gudynas E. (2010). Si eres tan progresista ¿Por qué destruyes la naturaleza? Neoextractivismo, izquierda y alternativas. Ecuador Debate (CAAP-Quito), 79: 61-81.
  44. Hannigan J. (1995). Environmental Sociology. London: Routledge.
  45. Holbraad M., Pedersen M.A. (2017). The Ontological Turn: An Anthropological Exposition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  46. Keck F. (2020). Asian Reservoirs. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  47. Lakoff A. (2017). Unprepared. Global Health in a Time of Emergency. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
  48. Latour B. (2005). Reassembling the Social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  49. Latour B. (2000). Politiche della natura. Milano: Cortina.
  50. Latour B. (2017). Facing Gaia. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  51. Latour B. (2018). Tracciare la rotta. Come orientarsi in politica. Milano: Cortina.
  52. Lovelock J. (1979). Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  53. Lynch M. (2017). STS, symmetry and post-truth. Social Studies of Science, 47(4): 593-599. DOI: 10.1177/0306312717720308
  54. Malm A., Hornborg A. (2014). The geology of mankind? A critique of the Anthropocene narrative. The Anthropocene Review, 1(1): 62-69. DOI: 10.1177/2053019613516291
  55. Martinez-Alier J. (2009). Ecologia dei poveri. Milano: Jaca Book.
  56. Mbembe A. (2016). Necropolitica. Verona: Ombre Corte.
  57. Meyer J. (2015). Engaging the Everyday. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  58. Mitchell T. (2011). Carbon Democracy. London: Verso.
  59. Mol A. (1999). Ontological politics. A word and some questions. In Law J., Hassard J. (eds.) Actor-Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell.
  60. Moore J. (2017). Antropocene o capitalocene? Verona: Ombre Corte.
  61. Mouffe C. (2013). Agonistics. London: Verso.
  62. Norgaard R. (1994). Development Betrayed. London: Routledge.
  63. O’Malley P. (2010). Resilient subjects: uncertainty, warfare and liberalism. Economy and Society, 39(4): 488-509. DOI: 10.1080/03085147.2010.510681
  64. Osti G., Pellizzoni L. (a cura di) (2018). Energia e innovazione tra flussi globali e circuiti locali. Trieste: EUT.
  65. Pellizzoni L. (2016). Ontological Politics in a Disposable World: The New Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge.

Luigi Pellizzoni, Natura o tecnica? Sars-Cov-2, nuovi materialismi e critica dell’Antropocene in "SOCIOLOGIA URBANA E RURALE" 127/2022, pp 94-106, DOI: 10.3280/SUR2022-127008