![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Notes
1F.W.J. Schelling, System of Transcendental Idealism, trans. Peter Heath (Charlottesville: Virginia University Press 1978), p. 6.
2Novalis, Schriften, Vol. 1 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960), p. 84.
3Friedrich Hlderlin, Smtliche Werke, Vol. 2 (Frankfurt: Deutscher Klassiker, 1994), p. 256.
4Cf. Adrian Wilding, “Max Weber and 'the Faustian Universality of Man,'” Journal of Classical Sociology, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2008, pp. 74-78.
5IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Fourth Assessment Report, online at: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm, p. 37, accessed May, 1, 2008.
6Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A.V. Miller (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 344.
7Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. John Cumming (London: Verso, 1979), p. 42.
8Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. John Cumming (London: Verso, 1979), p. 9.
9Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. John Cumming (London: Verso, 1979), p. 84.
10Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. John Cumming (London: Verso, 1979), p. 10.
11Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. John Cumming (London: Verso, 1979), p. 222.
12Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. John Cumming (London: Verso, 1979), p. 224.
13Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. John Cumming (London: Verso, 1979), p. 34.
14Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. John Cumming (London: Verso, 1979), p. 4
15Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. John Cumming (London: Verso, 1979), p. 59.
17Max Horkheimer, The Eclipse of Reason (London: Continuum, 2004), p. 74.
16Max Horkheimer, The Eclipse of Reason (London: Continuum, 2004), p. 74.
18Adorno and Horkheimer, op. cit., p. 35.
19Adorno and Horkheimer, op. cit., p. 36.
20Hegel, op. cit., pp. 117-118.
21Friedrich Engels, “The Part Played By Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Selected Works, Vol. 2 (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1962), p. 89.
22Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 3, trans. Ben Fowkes (Harmonsdworth: Penguin, 1976), p. 195. Cf. Alfred Schmidt, The Concept of Nature in Marx, trans. Ben Fowkes (London: New Left Books, 1971), pp. 89-90.
23Engels, op. cit., p. 89.
24Engels, “Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy,” in Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 3 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1975), p. 431. Cf. Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, trans. Ben Fowkes (Harmonsdworth: Penguin 1976), pp. 873-895.
25Herbert Marcuse, “Industrialization and Capitalism in the Work of Max Weber,” in Negations: Essays in Critical Theory, trans. J. Shapiro (London: Free Association Books, 1988), pp. 223-224.
26Martin Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought, trans. Albert Hofstadter (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), pp. 114-115.
27Martin Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought, trans. Albert Hofstadter (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), pp. 114-115.
28Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: The Ideology of Industrial Society (London: Sphere Books, 1968), p. 127.
29Marcuse, Counter-Revolution and Revolt (London: Allen Lane, 1972), p. 60.
30Marcuse, Counter-Revolution and Revolt (London: Allen Lane, 1972), p. 61.
31Marcuse, Counter-Revolution and Revolt (London: Allen Lane, 1972), p. 62.
32Cf. Adrian Wilding, “Why We Don't Remain in the Provinces,” Philosophy and Social Criticism, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2005, pp. 109-129.
33Horkheimer, op. cit., p. 69.
34Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, trans. Harry Zohn (New York: Schocken, 1969), p. 259.
35Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1988), p. 162.
36Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, trans. Robert Hullot-Kentor (London: Athlone, 1999), p. 68.
37Adorno, Mahler: A Musical Physiognomy, trans. Edmund Jephcott (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1992), p. 154.
38Adorno, Mahler: A Musical Physiognomy, trans. Edmund Jephcott (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1992), p. 154.
39Novalis, op. cit., p. 84
40Adorno, “The Idea of Natural History,” Telos, 60, 1985, p. 117, (translation amended).
41Gyorg Lukcs, History and Class Consciousness, trans. Rodney Livingstone (London: Merlin, 1971), p. 234.
42Schmidt, op. cit., p. 166.
43Neil Smith in his book Uneven Development (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), Chs. 1 and 2, argues strongly against Schmidt and the Naturbeherrschung thesis of the earlier Frankfurt School, offering as an alternative his idea of “the production of nature”: for Smith, nature under a system of generalized commodity production becomes wholly an artifact, rendering the idea of the domination of nature by humans outmoded and even incoherent. The same argument appears in Steven Vogel's Against Nature: The Concept of Nature in Critical Theory (New York: SUNY Press, 1996). Vogel sides with Lukcs, making what he calls a “quasi-Hegelian” case that the natural and the social are today “not distinguishable,” because nature is entirely “the product of social practices” [p.7]. However, Vogel seems here to misunderstand Hegelian “mediation,” taking it to mean something like becoming identical. In Vogel as in Smith, the natural and the social threaten to become what Hegel called “indifferent,” the proverbial night in which all cows are black. Though both writers undoubtedly capture a powerful tendency within capitalism towards the socialization of nature, Smith's argument that “the production of nature” is now “universal” [Smith, p. 60], or Vogel's argument that all nature is now “second nature” [Vogel, p. 35] are surely no less hyperbolical and undialectical than the Naturbeherrschung thesis they criticize.
44Arne Naess, “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement,” in A. Drengson and Y. Inoue (eds.), The Deep Ecology Movement: An Introductory Anthology (Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books, 1995), p. 4.
45Arne Naess, “Self-Realization: An Ecological Approach to Being in the World,” in ibid., p. 20.
46Arne Naess and George Sessions, “Platform Principles of the Deep Ecology Movement,” in ibid., p. 49.
47On the many problems with this concept, see Nathan Sayre, “The Genesis, History and Limits of Carrying Capacity,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 98, No. 1, 2008, pp. 120-134.
48Anna Bramwell, Ecology in the 20th Century: A History (London: Yale University Press, 1989).
49Benjamin, op. cit., p. 218.
51George Bradford, How Deep is Deep Ecology? (Ojai, CA: Times Change Press, 1989), p. 9.
50Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, p. 68.
52George Bradford, How Deep is Deep Ecology? (Ojai, CA: Times Change Press, 1989), p. 9.
53George Bradford, How Deep is Deep Ecology? (Ojai, CA: Times Change Press, 1989), p. 10.
54George Bradford, How Deep is Deep Ecology? (Ojai, CA: Times Change Press, 1989), p. 76.
55Cf. Murray Bookchin, Re-Enchanting Humanity: A Defense of the Human Spirit Against Antihumanism, Misanthropy, Mysticism and Primitivism (London: Cassell, 1995).
56T. Adorno, Critical Models: Interventions and Catchwords, trans. Henry W. Pickford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), p. 156.
57G.W.F. Hegel, The Philosophy of Nature, trans. A.V. Miller (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970), p. 444.
58Horkheimer, op. cit., p. 96.
59Naomi Klein, “Forget the Green Technology-the Hot Money is in Guns,” The Guardian, November 30, 2007, online at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2219530,00.html, accessed 11/30/07.
60Friedrich Nietzsche, “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense,” in Daniel Breazeale (ed. and trans.), Philosophy and Truth: Selections from Nietzsche's Notebooks of the Early 1870s (Hassocks: Harvester, 1979), p. 79.
61Here it should be clear in what ways my approach differs from that of John Bellamy Foster in his important book Marx's Ecology, a book which is also notable for reviving Marx's concept of metabolism. However, while Foster's reading of Marx as an ecologist is ground-breaking and illuminating, his reading of Hegel is quite conventional. Schelling likewise receives short shrift there. My own argument develops that of recent Hegel scholarship which sees Hegelian Geist not as Foster portrays it—disembodied, ahistorical and abstract (idealism in the pejorative sense, a doxa Marx himself often succumbed to)—but as embodied, socio-historical and intersubjective [see for instance Frederick Beiser, Hegel (London: Routledge, 2005); Robert Williams, Hegel's Ethics of Recognition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000); and even Adorno's Hegel: Three Studies, trans. Shierry Weber Nicholson (Cambridge and London: MIT Press, 1993)]. The master-slave dialectic in the Phenomenology of Spirit on which I have focussed here is just one example that gives the lie to the idea that for Hegel everything “occured in the realm of the development of thought alone” (Foster, p. 4). Further, I suggest that in order to find Hegel's philosophy of nature, and for reflections particularly relevant today, one needs to look, contra Foster, not just in the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences and the Science of Logic, but also in the earlier, more radical Phenomenology.