Repensar la responsabilidad en una era planetaria; o, enfrentar al Antropoceno con Hans Jonas y Bruno Latour
| Autor | Rodrigo Chacón Aguirre |
| Cargo | Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, México |
| Páginas | 67-103 |
Isonomía • Núm. 59 • 2023 •110.5347/isonomia.59/2023.656• [67]
Abstract: is paper argues that the coming of the Anthropocene requires a shi in the me-
aning and scope of responsibility. Drawing on Hans Jonas and Bruno Latour, I argue that res-
ponsibility is a dening feature of humanity which is nevertheless haunted by its opposite.
Indeed, if to be responsible is primarily to be responsive to the claim of the Other, then the
culture of personal responsibilit y that prevails today is a betrayal of both humanity and the
Earth. When Jonas formulated such thoughts in 1979 the Earth system was neither a eld of
scientic study, nor a matter of existential concern. Few scholars took him seriously. However,
recent developments in scientic, legal, and environmental thought have vindicated his vision.
To test this hypothesis I turn to Latour, who was a careful readerand criticof Jonas. Both
thinkers regarded the modernist belief that only humans are sources of valid moral claims as an
error that ought to be corrected. As the Earth today reacts to our interventions with extreme
weather and zoonotic diseases, their message is resounding in growing circles. e Anthropo-
cene upends an era in which only (some) humans were allowed to speak. Now we must teach
ourselves how to listen and respond to other living beings and future generations. is respon-
siveness, I argue, will form the core of emerging regimes of planetary responsibility.
Keywords: Hans Jonas, Bruno Latour, responsibility, justice, climate change, Anthropocene.
Resumen: Este artículo sostiene que la lleg ada del Antropoceno requiere un cambio en el
signicado y alcance de la responsabilidad. Con base en Hans Jonas y Bruno Latour, sostengo
que la responsabilidad es una característica denitoria de la humanidad que, no obstante, está
acechada por su opuesto. Si ser responsable es primariamente ser receptivo a lo Otro, enton-
ces la cultura de responsabilidad personal que prevalece hoy en día es una traición tanto a la
humanidad como a la Tierra. Cuando Jonas formuló tales ideas en 1979, el sistema tierra no
era ni un campo de estudio cientíco ni una cuestión de pre ocupación existencial. Pocos aca-
démicos lo tomaron en serio. Sin embargo, desarrollos recientes en el pensamiento cientíco,
Rethinking Responsibility in a Planetary Age; or, Facing the
Anthropocene with Hans Jonas and Bruno Latour
Repensar la responsabilidad en una era planetaria; o, enfrentar al Antropoceno
con Hans Jonas y Bruno Latour
Rodrigo Chacón Aguirre
Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, México
Rodrigo.chacon@itam.mx
10.5347/isonomia.59/2023.656Rodrigo Chacón Aguirre
legal y ambiental han validado su visión. Para probar esta hipótesis, retomo a Latour, quien
fue un cuidadoso lectory críticode Jonas. Ambos pensadores consideraron que la creencia
modernista de que solo los humanos son fuentes de reclamos morales válidos es un error que
debe ser corregido. A medida que la Tierra hoy reacciona a nuestras intervenciones con fenó-
menos climáticos extremos y enfermedades zoonóticas, su mensaje resuena en círculos cada vez
mayores. El Antropoceno trastoca una era en la que solo algunos humanos tenían permitido
hablar. Ahora debemos enseñarnos a escuchar y responder a otros seres vivos y a generaciones
futuras. Sostengo que esta capacidad es el corazón de regímenes emergentes de responsabilidad
planetaria.
Palabras clave: Hans Jonas, Bruno Latour, responsabilidad, justicia, cambio climático, An-
tropoceno.
One does not have to be a great seer to predict
that the relationship between humans and natu-
re will, in all probability, be the most important
question of the present century.
Philippe Descola
at tree, this sh, those woods, this place, that
insect, this gene, that rare earth–are they my ends
or must I again become an end for them?
Bruno Latour
I. Introduction
is paper compares two highly inuential answers to the current ecological crisis as
developed by Hans Jonas (1903-1993) and Bruno Latour (1947-2022). Although
their work has oen been dismissed in academic circles, it has g ained a remarkably
large following among the wider public. Jonass 1979 e Imperative of Responsibili-
ty sold more than 200,000 copies in Germany alone, b ecoming a source of key terms
of public discourse, including sustainable development, the precautionary principle,
and the heuristics of fear.1 Latour is today one of the most cited scho lars in the social
sciences and humanities. Arguably the most famous French philosopher of the present,
his pioneering work has inspired scientists, scholars, artists, and COP-21 negotiators
in a movement to re-imagine life on Earth for our troubled times (Maniglier, 2021).
Jonas and Latour had much in common. Both were heterodox thinkers who blen-
[68] Isonomía • Núm. 59 • 2023
Rethinking Responsibility in a Planetary Age; or, Facing the Anthropocene with Hans Jonas and Bruno Latour
ded the (so-called ) social and natural sciences. Both thought of themselves as philo-
sophers, though they were similarly steeped in theology, while drawing on a wide range
of academic elds, including histor y, biology, and anthropolog y.2 Both were remarka-
bly erudite scholars, but they did not belong to the academic el ite. Most importantly
for our purposes, they became authors of public philosophies d irected at anyone wi-
lling to listen rather than professors. eir key message was that we nee d to think and
live in a radically novel way to remain human on a damaged Earth. More concretely,
what we need is a political ethics grounded in our condition as vulnerable, precarious,
and transitory beings who belong to an Earth that is equally alive and fragile.
As rst formulated by Jonas in 1979, this message proved academically untimely. In
an age that began to be dominated by post-metaphysical thinking (Habermas, 1988),
Jonas called for a future metaphysics ( Jonas, 1999, p. 108) a call that was echoed
by Latour in numerous writings. Drawing on relatively marginal, yet powerful, strands
of European thought notably on Alfred North Whiteheadboth thinkers articulated
cosmologies that undermined some of the central tenets of the modernist philosophi-
cal and political imagination, including the defense of exclusively human conceptions
of freedom, reason, progress, and autonomy. Jonas, as we shall see, postulated that
all living beings are free and endowed with mind; perhaps even non-organic matter
has these qualities. Similarly, Latours universe (or pluriverse) is populated by living
entities, which range from stones and pip es to microbes, endorphins, SAR S-CoV-2,
and the Earth system (or Gaia). From the lowliest amoeba to the Earth system as a
whole, both authors suggested, we are surrounded by life which is its own end and
must be treated as such. Only this kind of thinking could ground the ethical vision that
humanity will need to survive and ourish on an endangered Earth.
In what amounts to a partial vindication of their thought, much recent work in the
social sciences and humanities has followed the metaphysical turn taken by Jonas and
Latour. Indeed, the question of how the world is furnished (Latour, 2004, p. 128)
has re- emerg ed in a variety of elds and approaches, including the new materialism
in political theory, object-oriented ontology, speculative feminism, and post-colonial
thought. is turn is not simply an academic aair. It responds crucially to phenomena
such as a changing climate, the rise of Earth system science, and an existential concern
for the planet as a whole (Ghosh, 2017, p. 31). One important consequence has been
a renewed attention to the very materiality of human institutions from the economy
to democracy to history and lawwhich are increasingly understood as socio-technical
assemblages involving myriad forms of life. us, the vibrant matter that makes up
Isonomía • Núm. 59 • 2023 • [69]
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba