September 14, 2026 @ 16:00 – 17:30 CET
In 2024, the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) formally rejected the proposal to declare the Anthropocene an official geological epoch. This rejection of stratigraphers hasn’t diminished the concept’s narrative and political power. As a historian of science, Melissa Charenko, highlights in her work “Science and Society’s View on the Anthropocene” (2026) that the Anthropocene is not merely a scientific or geological concept, but also has its place in humanities and social sciences. In the seminar, we have dealt with the plurality of meaning of the Anthropocene and several implications of this plurality.
The scientific Anthropocene, or the Anthropocene conceptualised by stratigraphers, can be seen as a “master narrative” since it aims to tell a singular planetary story based on changes in sediment layers. This practice is seen as placing a golden spike. However, describing is not innocent. The scientific Anthropocene is criticized for it being the God trick separation between lives, livelihoods, community and place on the one hand, and global planetary time scales on the other hand. Furthermore, there have been many criticisms of the implications of defining the start date, or golden spike, of the Anthropocene.
The concept of the Anthropocene has traveled within and between other disciplines. In the discussion, we have explored different meanings of the Anthropocene. For instance, historians are placing human agencies and localities central. In Science and Technology studies, the Anthropocene is seen as a change in understanding instead of a change in the real world. In social science and humanities, there has been attention to the causes and effects of the Anthropocene, where different causes reveal different culpabilities and responsibilities for the environmental crisis. Then there are also narratives that bring notions of race, gender, different scales, class and non-humans into the conversation of the Anthropocene.
These notions are overlapping yet distinct, and provide insights for which the narrative of the stratigraphers do not account for. This raises several questions related to plurality: Do we need an interdisciplinary approach under a unified narrative, or a multiplicity of meanings? If a plurality of accounts of the Anthropocene gives the best understanding of the problem and solutions, how do we facilitate this plurality? How to reconcile conflicts or meanings that might not be compatible? And what could it mean to have moments of conflict in these questions?
Organisers: Sapna Kumar and Futura Venuto