Prologue: autumn aroma -- What's left? -- Arts of noticing -- Contamination as collaboration -- Some problems with scale -- Interlude: smelling -- After progress : salvage accumulation -- Working the edge "freedom" -- Open ticket, Oregon -- War stories -- What happened to the state? : two kinds of Asian Americans in translation -- Between the dollar and the yen -- From gifts to commodities and back -- Salvage rhythms : business in disturbance -- Interlude: tracking -- Disturbed beginnings (...) : unintentional design -- The life of the forest : coming up among pines -- History -- Resurgence -- Serendipity -- Ruin in gaps and patches -- In science as translation -- Flying spores -- Interlude: dancing -- In the middle of things -- Matsutake crusaders -- Ordinary assets -- Anti-ending : some people I met along the way -- Spore trail: the further adventures of a mushroom -- Notes -- Index. (shrink)

Because computers zoom across magnifications, it is easy to conclude that both knowledge and things exist by nature in precision-nested scales. The technical term is “scalable,” the ability to expand without distorting the framework. But it takes hard work to make knowledge and things scalable, and this article shows that ignoring nonscalable effects is a bad idea. People stumbled on scalable projects through the same historical contingencies that such projects set out to deny. They cobbled together ways to make things (...) and data self-contained and static, and thus amenable to expansion. In European New World plantations, the natives were wiped out; coerced and alienated plants and workers came to substitute for them. Profits were made because extermination and slavery could be discounted from the books. Such historically indeterminate encounters formed models for later projects of scalability. This essay explores scalability projects from the perspective of an emergent “nonscalability theory” that pays attention to the mounting pile of ruins that scalability leaves behind. The article concludes that, if the world is still diverse and dynamic, it is because scalability never fulfills its own promises. (shrink)

How might Strathernian comparison extend anthropology beyond human exceptionalism? This essay explores how a fungal spore might guide attention to more-than-human nature. The exercise allows us to reflect on knowledge tools we use for understanding human as well as nonhuman social relations.

Abstract:This assessment of the field explores a confluence of feminist thinking about the 20th-century Great Acceleration in the United States: post-World-War II projects of modernization made the security of white nuclear families global models of well-being, while banishing the work of their securitization to non-white sacrifice zones—which eventually came to encompass most of the earth. “Anthropocene” is thus a project of making race and gender as much as making capital. The essay continues into feminist arguments for limiting the Anthropocene to (...) maintain spaces of more-than-human livability. We end with work of emerging scholars. (shrink)

Because computers zoom across magnifications, it is easy to conclude that both knowledge and things exist by nature in precision-nested scales. The technical term is “scalable,” the ability to expand without distorting the framework. But it takes hard work to make knowledge and things scalable, and this article shows that ignoring nonscalable effects is a bad idea. People stumbled on scalable projects through the same historical contingencies that such projects set out to deny. They cobbled together ways to make things (...) and data self-contained and static, and thus amenable to expansion. In European New World plantations, the natives were wiped out; coerced and alienated plants and workers came to substitute for them. Profits were made because extermination and slavery could be discounted from the books. Such historically indeterminate encounters formed models for later projects of scalability. This essay explores scalability projects from the perspective of an emergent “nonscalability theory” that pays attention to the mounting pile of ruins that scalability leaves behind. The article concludes that, if the world is still diverse and dynamic, it is because scalability never fulfills its own promises. (shrink)

La « soutenabilité » est le rêve de transmettre une terre habitable aux générations futures, humaines et non-humaines. Cet article soutient qu’une soutenabilité digne de ce nom exige la résurgence d’un modèle multi-espèces, en résistance aux tendances de la colonisation capitaliste qui transforme tout en plantations de monoculture. Pour affronter les défis de l’Anthropocène, nous devons faire davantage attention aux socialités qui se trament entre les espèces, socialités dont nous dépendons tous. Aussi longtemps que nous maintenons une séparation imperméable entre (...) nous et tout ce qui n’est pas humain, nous faisons de la soutenabilité un concept cruel relevant de l’esprit de clocher. Nous perdons de vue le tramage commun qui rend possible la vie sur Terre des humains avec les non-humains. De toutes façons, maintenir cette séparation ne fonctionne pas : les efforts des investisseurs pour réduire tous les autres êtres au statut d’actifs ont généré de terrifiantes écologies, que je qualifie ici de proliférations anthropocéniques. (shrink)