top of page

PROPERTYCENE by Sarah Cardwell-Smith

"The concept of property has been central to the both the theoretical concept and the phenomenon itself of the Anthropocene, and that this centrality is twofold. First, conceptualizations of ownership and property have been integral to the ways humans use and treat the environment for our own benefit (for example, various forms of the idea that humans—rather, certain humans—have a right to claim ownership of the land and products from the land). Second, conceptualizations of ownership and property have been central to the ways in which we think about the current environmental “crisis,” including our current obsession with the “Anthropocene.” Academia’s entire obsession with—and panic surrounding—the Anthropocene, for example, began because of our recognition that we are no longer simply dominating the environment. We have dominated this external “environment” so much that it has started, again, to dominate us. It is only once we have started to realize this supposed reversal of domination—and thus, of ownership—that we began to mobilize in opposition of this reversal.

 

"This realization led me to the ultimate and ironic question: Do we own property, or does property own us? Do we own the naming of the Anthropocene, or does our obsession with naming the Anthropocene own us? Of course, even this question does not escape the hold that the concept of property has on us. This question means the person asking that question (me) is still thinking primarily in terms of ownership—it reflects our assumption that if we don’t own something it must either own us, or be owned by someone else. Part of the reason we think of the Anthropocene as something we can define to begin with is that we think we own the Anthropocene. In naming something we can own it, and in owning it we can conquer it—or so is our hope."

cene.image.cardwell.smith.jpg
bottom of page