https://doi.org/10.31261/PS_P.2023.31.04
The aim of this article is to critically consider the question of whether the humanities share responsibility for the climate crisis by virtue of the dominant modes by which it is practised. As it seems, the dominant discursive practices of contemporary humanities – cognitive, communicative, textual – which have grown out of the Western model of thinking, are at odds with pro-climate demands. The tendency towards separating areas of research, towards categorisation and narrow specialisation, as well as the logic of growth and the institutional structure of science are not conducive to the development of interdependence, relationality, responsibility, forward thinking, among other things, i.e. the attitudes and postulates that are essential in acting for the good of the climate. In addition, the symbolic culture of writing, which is based on mediation, distance and high communicative competence, is also not conducive to the implementation of these postulates, and is even in conflict with them. The discursive practices based on these principles are worth changing. We should make wider use of other forms of communication and cognitive models and focus on practising interdependence and action for climate in collaboration with other areas of science.
Download files
Citation rules
Cited by / Share
Vol. 31 No. 1 (2023)
Published: 2023-10-16
10.31261/PS_P
English
Język Polski