The Chthulucene Reviewed

Video Block
Double-click here to add a video by URL or embed code. Learn more

Every so often, there’s an academic term that spreads out from the Ivory Tower and becomes a common phrase understood and used a lot. Joseph Campbell’s monomyth was one from the Hero with a Thousand Faces - the idea that every hero myth follows the same structure. One of the more recent ones has been the Anthropocene. The idea of the Anthropocene has become immensely popular, both inside and outside formal academia. It’s presence is not only on the front of books, but also on podcast titles and YouTube channels.

The Anthropocene is originally a term from geology, and is a definitional term for a particular geological epoch. It’s name literally translates to “the age of man”. It’s based on the idea that human activities have a direct affect on the world around them. The term has grown outside of its specific geological usage, and it has grown to have a place in other disciplines. Its use outside of it is probably most popularised by the podcast The Anthropocene Reviewed, by John Greene.

This all being said, the Anthropocene as a concept is not without its critiques. The Anthropocene, most notably in its more implicit understandings, is presenting a particular view of the world. The focus is on how humans have impacted the landscape and world - but always keeps humans as the central focus.

Philosopher Donna Haraway has a different -cene to present - the Chthuluscene. Despite its ame being incredibly similar to the Cthulhu of Lovecraft, its name is actually derived from Greek, references to the Chthonic, or earth goddesses or forces. In fact, she spells it with an extra H, just to try and shift the understanding. That being said, thinking about the Chthuluscene with Lovecraft in mind may not necessarily be a bad thing. But we’ll get there.

The Chthuluscene differs from the Anthropocene in several ways, but one very important one for our purposes here. According to Haraway, “Unlike the Anthropocene… the Chthuluscene is composed of continuation histories and cross-species practices of becoming with one another”. In other words, humans are not the most important protagonists in the story of life. Other beings, other life, is just as much a part of the formation of the world, and our interactions with it, as we are. Centering ourselves as the main thing is part of the problem with the world as it is. By thinking about us as a part of a fuller conceptual weave of beings is a better way of thinking about how our impact on the world has occured.

To truly be able to alter our understanding from a human centric approach to a more holistic approach, we need to embody the narratives that point us in this direction. As Donna Haraway writes: “we need stories (and theories) that are just big enough to gather up the complexities and keep the edges open and greedy for surprising new and old connections.” Is through stories we connect to others, through stories we understand ourselves, and through stories we understand our place in the world.

Luckily, we have stories that paint us in the direction of the Chthuluscene. These stories don’t exclude humans, but also don’t centre them as the only important creature, nor are the other living beings in our environment at the mercy of humans without their own intentions and actions.

On a more horrific view, we can think of the Chthuluscene’s more literary namesake - the Cthulhu mythos. While Lovecraft’s view of an active environment filled with creatures who can react against us, pitting humans as not the protagonists of the world, was something to be scared about and to try and avoid. But the idea of it can, in some respects, fit the Chthulhuscene.

But I think a better example would be one from Studio Ghibli. Really, many of Ghibli’s movies have a centering of nature, either directly, in the case of Nausicaa and Princess Mononoke, but also more generally and implicitly, like Spirited Away. Hayao Miyazaki has explained that the most distinguishing aspect of Ghibli’s animation is in its depiction of nature. He says: “We don’t subordinate the natural setting to the characters… That is because we feel that the world is beautiful. Human relationships are not the only thing that is interesting. We think that weather, time, rays of light, plants, water, and wind - what make up the landscape - are all beautiful. That is why we make efforts to incorporate them as much as possible in our work”. Incorporating nature and the landscape as not something separate from the humans involved is an important part of the Chthuluscene. It’s not a lack of human involvement, but rather an acknowledgement that we are as much a part of the landscape as the trees are.

This is, in fact, the entire point of Princess Mononoke. Ashitaka finds himself in the middle of a war between humans and nature. The town’s over-consumption and industrialisation is marring the landscape, turning nature and environmentalism against them. Ashitaka, however, situates himself not on either side of the war. He is not fully against the humans, nor is he against the natural forces. He sees a way for both to live together, to see humans as a part of the natural landscape as much as the forest spirit and the kodamas.

In a more simplicit anthropocentric take, the movie would be a good vs evil war, where Ashitaka would have to either show how humans deserve to be cared for and thrive, or how the environment is the peaceful, serene, human-devoid landscape it is often depicted as. Instead, Princess Mononoke is a depiction of the Chthuluscene - a knowledge humans do impact the environment, but that the environment impacts us just as much in return.

Miyazaki claims to have been profoundly influenced by the “broadleaf evergreen forest culture hypothesis” of ethnobotanist Sasuke Nakao. The theory is that there were broadleaf evergreen forests in prehistoric times which covered a large percentage of Asia, including Japan and up to the Himalayas. These forests nurtured a “common culture”, focused on a forest way of life.

Now, I don’t want to speak either for or against this theory - I’m not a botanist nor a historian. But I am an anthropologist, and we can see how this idea has greatly impacted Miyazaki. His work reflects a positionality of nature as not something that is set in contrast to humans. Like Ashitaka, Miyazaki sees it as possible to marry the two worlds, rather than existing in a place where one has to choose between the two. It’s not a choice, but rather an acknowledgement that there is a way to live in both positions. But in order for humans to flourish, they have to acknowledge the role that nature plays in their world, and no longer position themselves as the protagonists in that view.

There are some Western storytellers whose stories can also point us to the Chthuluscene. The world of J.R.R. Tolkien is one in which nature has a power, an agency, and an important role in the world of MiddleEarth.

The world of Middle Earth is one which consists of many creatures, and not just the humanoid ones either. Sure, dwarves, elves, hobbits, and humans all exist together, but there are also other forces, too. In the movies, when the Fellowship is climbing Mt Caradhras, its Saruman who whips up a storm to force the Fellowship into the Mines of Moria. However, this is not how Tolkien originally conceived of this. In the books, its the Caradhras itself which wants to push the Fellowship away from it, as it rejects them climbing on it.

Tolkien also has an important relationship with forests. The Fangorn forest is an old forest, where the hobbits first encounter Ents. The Ents are the tree shepherds, the keep the trees in the forest. This means that trees can move, have agency, have the ability to change the landscape through their own initiatives. We see this more actively in the Battle of Helm’s Deep.

As Theoden and Aragon led the cavalry charge to drive the Orcs out of the fortress, a forest is suddenly present at the enemies rear. Their attacks drive the Orcs into the present Huorn Forest, a forest so angry with the orcs that it consumes the orcs and bury them, never for them to emerge.

Huorns are described by Treebeard as a transitional form of tree - they could either be Ents who have become more tree-like, or trees who have become more animated. The case for the Huorn forest which travelled the landscape to assist at Helm’s Deep is less clear, and could be a combination of the two. As Fangorn forest’s Ents showed, there was anger in the forest toward Orcs and the servants of Sauron.

Trees and nature in Tolkien’s work are often given a place of prominence. They have a power to them, and a feeling of connection and togetherness. Treebeard laments that the trees cut down by the Orcs around Isenguard were his friends. Connecting and loving the forest is a reciprocal action in Middle Earth - beings do not love trees unrequited, but can be loved and cared for back in return. And likewise, beings who hate and disrespect the forest can be hated and disrespected in turn.

In other words, Tolkien understands that the role of humans - or other humanoid living beings in Middle Earth - is not separate from the landscape and nature, or even other life around the world. Its all necessary to work together, to see the role of everything and everyone, regardless of species. The Battle of Helm’s Deep demonstrated that - pushing out evil required the work of many of the living creatures around Middle Earth, including the Rohirrium, Elves, Men, and forests.

Donna Haraway is not unaware of stories which help to demonstrate the world as part of the Chthuluscene. She draws, in particular, on the work of Ursula Le Guin. But there are many creatives seeing our current epoch not as the Anthropocene, but as the Chthuluscene. This distinction is important because it de-centres the human in our mind. If we want to make changes to help the environment, we have to understand the environment as an important, functional part of our world. Its adjusting our perspective, understanding that humans are not the protagonists, whose actions are separate from having a consequence on the rest of the world. And also, in response, the environment, and the nonhumans in our lives, also have a great impact on us. Because we do not live in the Anthropocene, but in the Chuluscene.

Next
Next

Cosplay and the Dressing of Identity