I’ve found this weeks readings on Global histories of the non-human interesting as they demonstrate how the field of transnational and global histories have moved on from looking at solely the actions and interactions between humans and have moved into the realm of studying the transfers and flows of non-human phenomena. This of course seems extremely relevant in a contemporary sense as its not uncommon to hear the phrase ‘viruses don’t care about borders’ used to describe the globe’s current predicament. Therefore, the emphasis appears to be on the need to address how the world has been shaped by phenomena outside of human control or in the case of climate change exacerbated by the actions of humans through Malm’s concept of the ‘fossil economy’.
What interested me about this topic was the idea that similar to the debate we’ve come across earlier in the semester regarding the inclusion of nations in the field go transnational and global history: if we are going to incorporate non-human phenomena into global history, where does that leave humans? My immediate reaction to this was ‘of course humans need to feature somewhere otherwise we’re stepping into the realm of the sciences with their graphs and charts’. So perhaps we could look at how non-human factors have influenced particular groups of humans. Or look at how humans have impacted the non-human such as the extraction and burning of fossil fuels and the impacts of that process. However, I’m concerned that this may miss the point of what writing histories of the non-human is trying to achieve. I’m a bit confused but nonetheless interested in what the field aims to uncover.*
Although we do need to take into account the limits and issues of thinking through the lens of the ‘anthropcene’. I liked the Malm’s point about not viewing the impacts of the fossil economy as being launched on a species wide level. Rather it was a small group of elites from empires such as Britain and France who initiated the the fossil economy and the ‘capitalocene’. Thus, there is limited utility in using ‘humanity’ as a single unit of analysis when analysing the impact of particular humans on non-human phenomena, or the impact of non-human phenomena on certain people.
I also think its important to note that just because this is isn’t the history I’m used to reading or studying doesn’t, in my mind, make it any less of a valid pursuit. It’s just a bit out of the norm as suggested by O’Gormon and Gaynor’s point that more-than-human and multi-species research has to be by nature experimental, due to the combing of sources and disciplines that have often been separated from one another or reserved for other disciplines of research. Therefore, histories of the non-human are likely to continue to evolve and develop.
*After reading Bernhard’s chapter this confusion was cleared up somewhat, as the chapter appeared to take look at the impacts of a non-human phenomena on people and societies as well as other non-human factors such as livestock. Hence, the field has become a bit clearer to me.