Por una teoría después de la teoría que destruya los vocabularios de mitigación, adaptación, viabilidad y sustentabilidad con los que se habla actualmente del cambio climático

por Juan Pablo Anaya

“Theory might have both interest and worth—if we accept the thorough contingency of such worth—only if it is as destructive of the imagination (and the vocabulary of mitigation that characterizes it) as our milieu of possible extinction allows. We might need to abandon the grounding of ecology on nature (Morton 2007) or consider modes of deconstruction in which the future were not radically open, hospitable and affirmative (Clark 2010). There is no shortage of data regarding the possible or inevitable absence of humans: terror threats are calculated meticulously by government think tanks; climate change protocols and negotiations require detailed prediction and scenario plotting, and popular news is dominated by economic, climactic, viral and political ‘updates’ regarding a range of intruding violences (Grusin 2010). Such information, far from indicating the location of texts in a polity, suggests just the sort of approach deemed to be horrifically absurd in Knapp and Benn Michaels’s miserable summation of theory. Let us imagine texts as lines drawn without any preceding or ideal community. Let us also, more importantly, be aware (insofar as we can) that the text of the current ‘multitude’ includes information regarding climate change, terror, destruction and extinction expressed in a vocabulary of mitigation, adaptation, viability policy and sustainability, none of which can figure the non-existence of the human. If theory were to operate as it might then it would be destructive of such an imaginary; it would be theory after theory.”

Claire Colebrook, aquí: http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/death-of-the-posthuman/