Conclusion

The Anthropocene is, by its very nature, a totalizing force. By adopting the use of the very concept of ‘anthropos’, it commits itself to the homogenization of both the cause and effect of perceived geological changes. Through this framework, the root of disruptive change is man (as an actor, acting in means which create and propagate sources of disruption). The solution to such disruptive change is also man (as a custodian, or ‘global steward’, that must remedy such sources of disruption). The ontological centerpiece of the argument becomes fixated upon the broad and nebulous category, ‘humanity’. While it is tempting to buy into such simplistic and all-encompassing ideas, it is imperative to also understand the fundamentally flawed nature of the Anthropocene as a concept.  

As demonstrated by the items preserved in this Cabinet, the essence of change and its effects lies in the specificity of the item itself. These instances of specificity tell a story. In fact, they are the very story that is being told. Every crevice, every splotch, and every indentation is a mark that conveys a tale relaying its physical and metaphysical journey to its current state. It is these stories which underlie the core concerns of the Anthropocene. Yet, by categorically labeling an item, one strips it of its ability to narrate stories of specificity, reducing its description to nothing more than another object of that category. This is the contradiction of the Anthropocene: a misguided effort to remedy specific and localized problems, asymmetrically created, with generic and globalized solutions. 

The Anthropocene's efforts to diagnose the ruinous effects of climate change and human activity on the planet only prescribe solutions that are orthogonal to what is truly needed to combat such disastrous potentialities. It fails to pinpoint and place blame upon specific actors that have contributed most to issues of climate change, instead concluding that humanity at large is the issue. It fails to understand the necessity of tailoring solutions around the intricacies of the locale it operates, instead advocating for perceived one-size-fits-all solutions which misleadingly promise scalable performance and global applicability. In effect, it wields the hammer of homogeneity and objectivity as it struggles to identify the world as anything other than a series of nails to hammer down. 

Thus, it is this lesson of failure that must be reflected upon to achieve a more nuanced Anthropocene, a neo-Anthropocene. We need a paradigm shift that refocuses our attention from the forest to the trees. For the Anthropocene, as the official name to a new geological epoch to be truly politically effective, we must strip it of its totalizing nature and reconsider it as a tool for communicating specificity. Akin to how this Cabinet provides a platform for numerous independent objects to display their own stories, the Anthropocene must act as a platform to display the multitude of localities and patchy landscapes (Tsing, Mathews, & Bubandt 2019) which exist in relation to people and non-humans. Only by de-emphasizing the need for central themes, underlying characteristics, and shared connections, can the Anthropocene truly begin to address the issues that it idealistically sets out to solve. 

Thank you for viewing our exhibit. We hope to see you again.