On 'The Leviacene: Defining Our Times’ - David Runciman.

An Analysis of - ‘The Leviacene: Defining Our Times’ - David Runciman.

I strongly resonate with David Runciman’s Leviacene argument as I see it as a narrative which changes us from a divided to a united planet, which is crucial for change in the current planetary moment. 

Many disagree with the notion of extensively discussing language and communication, or ‘defining our times’ (in the way that Runciman is) as an important endeavor, especially in the context of climate change. A waste of time in an urgent planetary moment, where we are already on borrowed time. But our worldviews, communication and narratives provide us with a productive blueprint for action - and Runciman’s argument that the ‘Leviacene’ should be the new word to describe our geological epoch encourages a hopeful and productive blueprint for how to approach the climate crisis. 

As a society, we have more access to information and technology than ever. We possess the greatest potential for creating change. It is hard to believe therefore that our inability to change thus far is due to anything but flaws in our thinking and relating to each other - our current modes of which encourage dissonance and climate apathy. This lack of ‘planetary thinking’ is why Runciman proposes the Leviacene argument. Runciman (2023) speaks of ‘Leviathans’ which are manmade yet artificial systems, also referred to continuously as “states and corporations.” (Runciman, 2023, 30:36)

Through looking at geological markers, I find it hard to contest that humans have not irreversibly marked the planet. This idea of the ‘Anthropocene’ holds true to me. However, I agree with Runciman that the current colloquial framing of the anthropocene is unproductive and involves logical flaws. I refuse to see these geological markers as holding an innate morality tale of who we are as beings. Runciman (2023) also rejects that the geological markers of humanity’s presence seen in the anthropocene reveal self-destructive human characteristics. He says “it's actually depressing if the only way we can save ourselves is to become different people.” (Runciman, 2023, 35:07) The era of polycrises, especially in relation to the climate, as reflecting who we are is particularly depressing to me as well, since who humans “are” implies something that cannot be changed and if who we are alone has directly caused this devastating impact on the helpless natural world, then to me who we are is a species who do not deserve to benefit from it. 

Additionally, Runciman (2023)  explains that it could not be who all of us are that has caused the markers – as that would be to ignore groups which are not in industrialised societies. It makes logical sense then that under the anthropocene framework, the blame would fall to some of us, likely those who are powerful, western, developed or industrialised. But to me, this distinction of who we are on a level of human nature alienates us. In discussing modes of relating Rosa (2020)  presents that alienation “contains the seeds of a rela­tion of aggression.” (p. 30) In order to foster real change, we need a framework which falls under Rosa’s discussion of resonance, as I agree with his claims that this is “the “essence" not only of human existence, but of all possible manners of relating to the world…the necessary precondition of our ability to place the world at a distance and bring it under our control.” (p. 31)

Rather than the unproductive framing of the anthropocene that implies “we broke it so we should fix it” (Runciman 37:09) the Leviacene argument reshapes this to the more hopeful idea that (of the Leviathans) “we made them so we can remake them” (Runciman 37:10) This clearly frames the issues caused by Leviathans as something that we can bring under “our control” (Rosa, 2020, p.31) Instead of blaming those who made them (western, industrialised, powerful beings or societies), we blame or hold to account the systems, machines, technologies that have been made. 

The refreshing conclusion here is that the geological epoch is a consequence not of an intrinsic human moral failure, but of our very humane urge to avoid misery and self-destruction that caused the Leviacene. Runciman discusses this in the context of the “Malthusian trap” (Runciman 40:40). By organising structures, we created economic, political and technological systems to pool resources and solve issues of collective action and the very issues that Runciman discusses Thomas Malthus thought would make us go extinct. We were, therefore, saved by the Leviathans of which we made and by thinking of the issue as not in us, but the systems we made, we can see clearly the way out: working together to remake those systems. 

In verbal discussion I’ve heard with others familiar with the Leviacene argument, some have claimed Runciman needed to be more clear about how we approach change and reform. Some argued his framing is purely theoretical and still defines the climate crisis as out of control as we (or the average person) ‘don’t have power’ which often lies with ‘the 1%.’ While I support most of his claims and his (to me) deliberate choice to not put his individual opinions on steps to approach change from a planetary perspective, I think the vagueness of some of Runciman’s claims does need to be improved upon.  He speaks of “the solution through much greater focus on international political co-operation and institution building.” (Runciman, 2023, 46:45)  But many would rightfully claim that they would not have much to do with political and institutional building, thus still creating a similar alienating distinction as the anthropocene between those who hold control and are to blame for these systems and those who don’t and aren’t.

I think what Runciman is dangerously missing in this argument is discussion around our agency and responsibility. He describes the Leviathans as “a version of us” (Runciman, 2023, 47:39) but does not clarify whether it is a version of all of us. I wondered if the Leviathans are only versions of those that hold corporate, political and institutional power. 

Under the Leviacene argument, I would extend this and claim all humans (whether or not an ‘equal’ part in the contribution or creation of Leviathans) hold responsibility and agency to help and encourage institutional reform. The only differing aspect is then the amount of agency each person holds and to what extent they can put this into action. A big issue in our current approach to climate change is the tendency for discussions of blame and power to divide and distract us from the imminent issue at hand that affects everyone. Through rhetorics like this we become more alienated, more dissonant, more aggressive to each other and therefore unable to inspire productive co-ordinated collective action. It is clear we are capable of collective, mass-scale action, as it is what created the Leviacene (our systems) to begin with. By classifying everyone as having equal responsibility and seeing the Leviathans as something we all hold some control over, we can maintain a sense of mutual relatedness. It is important to not ignore that some people may have more ability to remake the Leviathans than others, but it is perhaps more important to say of our shared humanity that we all hold a responsibility to try, together. 

Whether or not one would agree with Runciman’s argument what I strongly contest should not be ignored is his reminders of our shared humanity seen in claims such as that,  “corporations can do things that I think even the wickedest human beings would probably shy away from” and “all human beings…don't want self destruction’. (Runciman, 2023, 48:00) These came across as a striking, hopeful defense of humankind which deeply resonated with me. Under Rosa’s (2020) view of Resonance, I felt the step of self-efficacy in which “we feel connected to the world because we ourselves are able to affect something in it.” (pg. 33) Runciman’s appeal to all humans, and his ongoing framework of discussion aligns to Rosa’s idea of “mutual relatedness.” His humanising approach is what makes me defend this argument so deeply, as it cuts through that “lifeless” “frozen” feeling that we are “incapable of change” (Rosa, 2020, pg. 34) which has made many apathetic to our current epoch. As there is nothing in me that makes me more or less human than anyone else I believe this argument will resonate with many more, and that redefining our era through planetary thinking, as Runciman has helped achieve, is the first step to approaching real change. 

Sources:

Barasi, L. (2018, October 5). Climate change apathy, not denial, is the biggest threat to our planet | Leo Barasi. The Guardian; The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/05/climate-change-apathy-not-denial-threat-planet

Runciman, D. (Host.) (2023, November 2) The Leviacene: Defining Our Times [Audio Podcast]. https://open.spotify.com/episode/285IcjExLUQ7QVFV6QWZjR?si=d30d51a6f42948fc

Hartmut Rosa, 2020. The Uncontrollability of the World.  Cambridge Polity.

‌