[Methodology] Historical Materialism as a Geographical Method

I've been reading a lot of David Harvey lately. In particular, I've looked at some of his earlier works when he more closely identified as a Geographer (today Harvey is technically a Professor of Cultural Anthropology at the City University of New York Graduate Center - but his formal training was in Geography). It may strike some readers as 'news' that Harvey is a geographer. After all, today his work is studied within most disciplines of the social sciences and humanities. In fact, Harvey is one of the few living social theorists who has ranked amongst the top twenty most-cited authors in academia (a list that includes the likes of Foucault, Weber, Kant, Chomsky, and Freud).

Harvey has long been deemed a leading 'Marxist' theorist because of his close reading of Marx's texts - in particular Capital and the Grundrisse. However, as he has said on video, he's less interested in how he is identified by others and more interested in reflecting on the strengths and weaknesses of Marxist analysis to see if it offers both explanatory and practical power to contemporary life. In a recent interview with Hector Agredano in the International Socialist Review (Issue 73, Sept./Oct. 2010), Harvey showcased this self-reflexive interpretation of the Marxist method:

"Within Marxism we also have to look back and be very critical of what I see as some very conservative, rather dogmatic understandings of the world... What a good Marxist does is to look at the conventional situation and do an analysis all over again given Marx’s method to try and understand the dynamics of the situation and therefore try to intervene in a way which is going to push society toward more democratic and more egalitarian solutions, and ultimately to solutions that are entirely non-capitalistic. I think that Marxism as a revolutionary theory and as a revolutionary practice has much to teach. There is a tremendous historical record, but we have to approach that historical record with some critical perspectives on what we did wrong as well as what we did right."

But what exactly is this 'Marxist method' that Harvey has helped to refine? The term 'historical materialism' has come to characterize what Marx and Engels called "the materialist conception of history" - a method of analyzing societal transformation through uncovering the dynamics of productive forces and social relations. In the preface to Marx's 1859 A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx explains the concept of the 'mode of production' - the combination of both a material, economic, foundational structure which relates in dialectical form* with a subjective, political structure [* NOTE: Interpreting the relationship between these two structures as 'dialectical' is important and is somewhat at the heart of a disagreement between 'historical materialism' and 'structural Marxist' analysis (as showcased in the works of Louis Althusser and Nicos Poulantzas). The latter is ahistorical, largely theoretical, and has been accused by some as containing an essentialist epistemology (see Robert W. Cox's essay "Social Forces, Sates and World Orders: Beyond International Relations")].

In his analysis of civilizational history, Marx found that periods of social transformation (in which old modes of production were replaced with new ones) occurred as a result of conflict between these two structures (material and subjective). Along these lines one could say that today we live in a global capitalist mode of production. At a material level 'capitalism' clearly characterizes the nature of current productive forces. However, at the level of social consciousness, while capitalist subjectivity is dominant, there is arguably some level of contestation of neoliberal capitalist ideology, particularly in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis. Where that leaves us as far as opportunities for future transformation is an important topic for political strategizing...

Now, there are a couple of ways in which this conception of history stood Marx apart from other political economists of his time (such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Thomas Malthus):

• Unlike the classical political economists who saw the mode of production as fixed, or given, Marx saw it as an impermanent mode of social organization which would ultimately change one day, regardless of whether statesmen wished this or not.
  
• Marx broadened the realm of political economy from a study of interrelated components or inputs (such as land, labour, resource, etc.) to a totalistic study the material and subjective structures of society.
• While hitherto the classical political economists appeared to work towards interpreting and consolidating existing relations of production and property, Marx saw such relations as unequivocally unfair and sought normatively better alternatives. Thus while the classical political economists saw statesmen as those whose responsibility it was to help define and sustain an everlasting capitalist mode of production, Marx was beginning to spell out a materialist conception of human history (now known as ‘historical materialism’) in which the statesman and other capitalists who owned the means of production were exposed as the culprits of an attempt to stop the transition to fairer modes of social organization.

Now, as the above quotation by Harvey suggests, at times this method has been misused and misunderstood (brutal self proclaimed 'Marxist' regimes come to mind). However, at other times historical materialism has served as a foundation to rich and foundational analyses in a variety of scholarly disciplines. For example, influential scholars employing historical materialist analysis can be found in the obviously-applicable fields of history (key examples would be Eric Hobsbawm and E.P. Thompson) and economics (as exemplified by Paul Sweezy's work), sociology and political philosophy (exemplified in the works of John Bellamy Foster, Jürgen Habermas and Frankfurt School theorists Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, among others), international relations (see the work of Robert W. Cox, for example), criminology (Willem Adrian Bonger and Thorsten Sellin), feminism and gender studies (Lise Vogel, Margaret Benston and Peggy Morton, among many others), psychology (Joel Kovel), and so on... Of course, David Harvey fits the bill as perhaps the most influential geographer who has employed the historical materialist method.

So what exactly does this method mean in the geographical context? As GeoDataZone: The Earth Encyclopedia aptly notes: "Historical materialism in geography attempts to explain patterns and processes of spatial and environmental change as the result of the specific social relations of capitalism or other modes of production". In other words, it attempts to ground both material and subjective changes to space and environment within existing political economic structures. To illustrate: If it bothers you that common spatial and socio-ecological 'issues' such as urbanization, poverty, and climate change are typically discussed (in the media and by political leaders) as fixable problems that could be 'solved' through new technologies and band-aid solutions, all of which fail to address the structural causes of said problems in the first place - then you may be the type of person who would benefit from an historical materialist analysis!

The encyclopedia entry goes on to suggest that "historical materialist research has more recently integrated with broader social and cultural theory. Historical materialists rejected in particular the self-proclaimed objectivity of logical positivism, and more generally the intellectual hegemony of 'bourgeois geography' [read traditional geography], mainly because both have been complicit more with oppression, imperialism, and racism than with any substantive form of social emancipation." In other words, an historical materialist geography must normatively work towards change for the better, and envision new ways of social organization that are more just. Harvey's article "On the History and Present Condition of Geography: An Historical Materialist Manifesto" (in The Professional Geographer 36, 1984) can be credited with bringing this critical, normative vision to the discipline.

Finally, international relations scholar Robert W. Cox (in Keohane's Neorealism and its Critics, 1986) has identified four key tenets of the historical materialist method which may also be of interest to the historical materialist geographer:

1. It's concern with the dialectic, defined at the levels of both logic and real history: "At the level of logic, [dialectic] means seeking truth through the explorations of contradictions... At the level of real history, dialectic is the potential for alternative forms of development arising from the confrontation of opposed social forces in any concrete historical situation" (215).
2. It's focus on hegemony and the locus of political, economic and ideological power, which adds new dimensions to the understanding of power, as showcased in "the dominance and subordination of metropole over hinterland, center over periphery," and one might add capital over labor (215-16).
   
3. It's concern with the relationship between state and civil society, which "recognizes the efficacy of ethical and cultural sources of political action" and interprets a "reciprocal relationship between structure (economic relations) and superstructure (the ethico-political sphere)" (216).
4. It's focus on "the production process as a critical element in the explanation of the particular historical form taken by a state/society complex", which enables it to be "sensitive to the dialectical possibilities of change in the sphere of production which could affect the other spheres, such as those of state and world order." (216-17).
   

So there you have it - the beginnings of an attempt to sketch out and identify the historical materialist method, which if done right, in Harvey's conception (1984):

• will enable Geography to become a popular, reflective project, "which opens new channels of communication and common understanding";
• will "create an applied peoples' geography unbeholden to narrow or powerful special interests, but broadly democratic in its conception"
• will "accept a dual methodological commitment to scientific integrity and non-neutrality";
• will "integrate geographical sensitivities into general social theories"
• will "define a political project that sees the transition from capitalism to socialism [or other just modes of production] in historico-geographical terms"
  

[Questioning] Is it time for legislation yet?

It's truly amazing. The day Syncrude is fined $3 million for failing to prevent the deaths of 1600 migrating ducks that landed in one of the company's tailings ponds, CBC reports that more dead ducks have been found in other Syncrude, Shell and Suncor facilitites! See the CBC story here (or copy and paste this URL: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2010/10/26/edmonton-more-ducks-tailings-pond.html)

This just goes to show that fines are totally fucking meaningless in Alberta's oil patch. They are especially joke-worthy when we consider who's paying the fine - the richest goddam companies in the country! These 'fines' are not deterrents in any way, shape or form. They have hardly, if at all, influenced the behaviour of oil sands operators, nor caused any major change in operations. Most importantly, the ducks (and other animals) are still dying. What do the fines do, other than raise money for the very governments that are currently working to protect the tar sands? How many dead ducks does it take for Fisheries and Oceans Canada to wake up and realize that they are completely and utterly failing to enforce legislation for which they are responsible? How many times does Stelmach's government need to mess up before Albertans revolt?

It's time to take this issue seriously. It's time for legislation and regulation of this industry, and a reevaluation on the real costs of this endeavor. It's time to ditch meaningless fines and start thinking about prosecuting the useless fuckheads who run these companies and the moron politicians who claim that they're "frustrated and disappointed" but have nothing to show for it. If anything, Renner and Stelmach should be frustrated and disappointed that clodpate, excrement-spewing, Big-Oil-apologist imbeciles like themselves have the political power to do something about this and yet fail do to so.

[Reflection] On Reality and the Academy

Before reading on, watch this brief video (in short, test your "awareness" by keeping track of how many times the white team passes the ball):

OK, so you've watched the video. You've tested your awareness. And hopefully, you've had a similar reaction to mine (and now you'll be extra vigilant when driving a car)!

However, I bring up the video for a different reason: I find this video helpful in illustrating the multifaceted nature of reality. Ever since I first watched this video I haven't been able to shake off the implications of being 'duped' by the moonwalking bear. For had I not been told by the good people at London Transport after the first scene that there is in fact a man in a bear costume dancing ridiculously across the screen, I never would have considered this to be a material 'fact' in this video, despite having used my own eyes and ears to decipher what is happening on the screen. 

This raises a philosophical question: Is the bear actually really there? For those of us who have been told of the 'trick' at the end of this video and have gone back to verify this claim, the bear is part of our conception of reality - it is has become a material fact. We have gone back to make sure that we see the bear, and sure enough it is there - the bear is real. But for those who aren't told to look for a bear, the bear may as well not exist. If you were to ask them whether they saw a the bear in the video, they would think you were crazy. So, again, one could make the case that the bear does not exist... at least for this latter group - they could go on forever thinking that the video has nothing to do with a dancing bear, and that they 'passed' the awareness test because they accurately counted the number of passes made by the white team. To complicate matters, I have shown this video to friends and some of them have still failed to see the bear on the second and even third showing, after being told to look for a moonwalking bear! It just goes to show that reality is muddier than we think.

If we were to gather people who have only seen the first part of this video with others who have been told to look for a moonwalking bear and have verified this as reality, we would have trouble coming to agreement as a group about the what really happens in the video. This is because we have different presuppositions. In other words, we can ask people the same question after watching the first half of the video (did you see a dancing bear?) and yield different results because there are multiple versions of reality out there.

OK, I've belabored this point... After all, it's just a YouTube video with an optical illusion, you say. But it's the broader implications that we can tease out and apply to more relevant issues that makes this important. Here's another example:

Recently I was listening to a CBC radio interview with Inuit filmmaker Zacharias Kunuk about a perplexing issue he's recently explored in Northern Canada. Inuit elders were claiming by the dozens that the earth was beginning to 'tilt' away from the sun. Whereas for decades the sun was known to rise and set at certain locations at certain times of the year, and whereas this had proven to be empirically true year after year after year, the elders discerned that something had gone awry because the sun was no longer where it was supposed to be at the given time of the year. It seemed to be drifting 'south', and not just by a small margin. The moon and the stars also seemed to be out of place. And so it was decided that the earth is in the process of tilting.

Western scientists were equally perplexed, because when they were told of this phenomena it did not fit their understanding of reality. This type of Earth tilting as the Elders described would be impossible according to the natural laws of geophysics. And so Western scientists have sought a different explanation. As it turns out, the Western scientists claim, high-paced human induced climatic changes have caused a change in the major wind patterns in the North. This has caused a hot air inversion layer, which causes light to bend differently. In turn, this creates an optical illusion in which the sun moves across the sky. The sun, moon, and stars appear 'out of position' because of the way light is being refracted differently through our changing atmosphere. But, they confirm, the sun, moon, and starts really are where they are supposed to be.
 
We can pose the question again about reality - has the earth tilted, as the Inuit Elders suggest, or is it merely an optical illusion caused by a changing climate? Aren't both 'realities' possible? Does it matter which reality we conceive? Or does what matter have to do with what we do about it? Does it help the Inuit to 'know' that the sun is where it is supposed to be, when in fact it appears elsewhere? The Inuit are adapting to their new reality, explains Kunuk, while the Western scientists are using it as further evidence that we need to do something about climate change.

Reality is subjective. And since most of us have different conceptions of reality - one might say we have different 'ontologies' - this poses a basic problem when it comes to communicating, discussing and debating various issues. For if the very ontology through which we interpret reality is divorced from the reality of the people with whom we are discussing, the possibility of reaching understanding is challenged. For those academically inclined, particularly in the field of Geography, R.T. Harrison and D.N. Livingstone (1980) offer a 'presuppositional' approach as a means to explore the very foundations of reality and the process of knowledge creation as a starting point to overcome the "pervasive influence of presuppositions in all scientific and philosophical thought" (25). It is useful! The following chart which they have offered helps us to uncover the multiple levels at which presuppositions are built, which is the first step in becoming aware of such presuppositions and trying to overcome them:

References:

R. T. Harrison and D. N. Livingstone. "Philosophy and Problems in Human Geography: A Presuppositional Approach," Area, Vol. 12, No. 1 (1980), pp. 25-31.

[Reflection] What about the Phytoplanktocene?

The term 'Holocene' - roughly translating to "recent whole" - refers to the geological era in which we currently reside. The Holocene began approximately 12,000 years ago, which means that by geological standards it is so young it's practically still a fetus. Despite this, the Holocene has seen geological transformation at an incredible pace, and a new force of change has prompted some to argue that we have entered a new era. While geological change is natural and constant - volcanoes erupt, tectonic plates shift, the chemical breakdown of the atmosphere fluctuates - something is different about the pace of and scale of geological change in recent centuries. As Paul J. Crutzen and Eugene F. Stoermer pointed out in a 2000 article in the IGBP Newsletter, human activity has fundamentally altered the Earth's systems to such a degree that homo sapiens can now be considered a geological force. Thus they proposed the term 'Anthropocene' to characterize the fact that humans now play a leading role in shaping the planet.

But how useful is this term? From a geopolitical perspective, I think it's helpful. As Simon Dalby argues, the term and its constitutive academic outcome - Earth System Science - "requires us to rethink assumptions of our living within an external environment" (2007: 103). Forget the age-old dichotomy between 'man' and 'nature'; the "Anthropocene" tells us that man is nature. No, this is not a new idea... but the term is food for thought for the planet's future prospects. It raises the question of how we humans will continue to shape the Earth's experience - after all, unlike volcanoes and shifting tectonic plates, we (theoretically) have consciousness to guide our awareness of our own actions. And so the term has its place, particularly if it is used as a tool to get people to realize the role we can play in protecting the environment.

And yet I am compelled to speak on behalf of the phytoplankton: After all, humans are not the only species that behave as a geological force, let alone the only species that fundamentally alters the atmosphere. As it turns out, phytoplankton are responsible for the production of over half of the world's oxygen! Not only that, they seem to be an essential component of ocean ecosystems. In a recent study by Daniel Boyce published in Nature (2010), phytoplankton are said to be "the fuel on which [marine ecosystems] run". Further still, phytoplankton play an essential role in seeding clouds across the planet (by producing dimethyl sulphide, which then reacts with seawater to form sulphur particles in the atmosphere around which water droplets form). In short, phytoplankton are a geological force without which much of the life on Earth would not be capable of survival - and there may just be other geological forces out there of which we are less keenly aware. And yet, the seeming absurdity of referring to a geological age as the "phytoplanktocene" makes me question whether the other term - the Anthropocene - really carries any (geological) weight? Theoretically, we've always lived in the phytoplanktocene - the era began when single celled organisms started photosynthesizing and converting carbon dioxide into oxygen. I'm not a geologist, but I can see why some geologists are skeptical about the extent of the human impact. Perhaps their big picture perspective reveals how in the long run, humans are just another species that has - like all species - simply altered their environment.

On the other hand... the interaction between humans and phytoplankton gives us reason to appreciate the term "Anthropocene" in a new light. As the Boyce study mentioned above has reported with some measure of despair, the global population of phytoplankton appears to be shrinking by 1% each year! In fact, since 1950 the Northern Hemisphere has lost 40% of its phytoplankton. Needless to say, the loss of phytoplankton would be catastrophic for many of the planet's living inhabitants. And the cause? Boyce explains, in a somewhat ironic twist, that it is anthropogenic climate change itself that is causing ocean currents to change (as a result of warmer temperatures), which in turn is not circulating adequate amounts of nutrients to the areas of the ocean where phytoplankton reside. In short, human activity appears to be reducing the relative power of phytoplankton to serve as a geological force which in turn makes life on Earth possible! If we're not careful, the "Anthropocene" may come to take on a new meaning: the epoch when human beings lived!