On the Emergence of an Ecological Class: A Memo

by Bruno Latour, Nikolaj Schultz, Julie Rose (Translation)

Under what conditions could ecology, instead of being a set of movements among others, organize politics around an agenda and set of beliefs? Can ecology aspire to define the political horizon in the way that liberalism, socialism, conservatism and other political ideologies have done at various times and places? What can ecology learn from history about how new political movements emerge and how they win the struggle for ideas, long before they can translate their ideas into parties and elections?

In this short text, consisting of 76 discussion points, Bruno Latour and Nikolaj Schultz argue that if the ecological movement is to gain ideological consistency and autonomy, it must offer a political narrative that recognizes, embraces and effectively represents its project in terms of social conflicts. Political ecology must accept that it brings along division. It must provide a convincing cartography of the conflicts it generates and, based on this, it must try to define a common horizon of collective action. In order to represent and describe these conflicts, Latour and Schultz propose to re-use the old notion of 'class' and 'class struggle', albeit infused with a new meaning in line with the ecological concerns of our New Climatic Regime. Advancing the idea of a new ecological class, assembled by its collective interests in fighting the logic of production and safeguarding our planet's conditions of habitability, they ask: how can a proud and conscious ecological class emerge and take effective action to shape our collective future?

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Research, Ecology, Sustainability, Philosophy, Essays

80 pages, Paperback

Published January 10, 2023

About the author

Bruno Latour, a philosopher and anthropologist, is the author of Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Our Modern Cult of the Factish Gods, An Inquiry into Modes of Existence, and many other books. He curated the ZKM exhibits ICONOCLASH and Making Things Public and coedited the accompanying catalogs, both published by the MIT Press.

Reviews

[Thorge · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sollte eher „Zur Notwendigkeit einer ökologischen Klasse“.
Spannende Gedanken, die die unnatürliche Trennung von Mensch und Natur aufzubrechen versuchen.

[Luc · Rating 5 out of 5]

Großartiger Denkanstoß der zwingt, bekannte Muster und Talkingpoints zu verlassen, einen Schritt zurück zu gehen und zu erkennen, dass wir unser Verständnis von der Welt und unserem Platz in ihr grundlegend ändern müssen, wenn wir die ökologische Krise überstehen möchten. Treffende Analyse, die die Orientierungslosigkeit die ich in der ökologischen Frage zwischen Antikapitalismus, Konsumkritik, Utopie und Apathie verspüre auf den Punkt bringt und erklärt. Must read für alle, die sich mit Ökologie beschäftigen, Politik machen oder sich als Aktivist:innen begreifen. Nur eben keine Gebrauchsanleitung.

[amsel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sehr spannende und eindrückliche Schilderungen. Diese Schrift sollte durchaus mehr Beachtung in Klimabewegungen finden - wie schön es wäre, würden wir uns als ökologische Klasse verstehen! Nur wie?

[Johann3,141 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sehr spannende Ideen und ein ambitionierter Versuch dem Klimaaktivismus einen neuen intellektuellen Unterbau zu verleihen. Eine gewisse Vorbildung in Soziologie und Philosophie helfen wohl beim vollen Verständnis. Mir waren die sprachlichen Bilder nicht immer verständlich, was wohl auch an der sehr kompakten Schreibweise liegt.
Aber so schnell wie es sich liest, kann man es ja sicher mit etwas Abstand noch einmal lesen und hoffentlich mehr verstehen.

[Donatella Gasparro · Rating 1 out of 5]

A solemn waste of time. The concept of "class" is stolen and stripped of its theoretical, political and historical thick meaning. The authors are completely oblivious of any analysis of the capitalist mode of production and brush aside the very real and material class composition of society as obsolete. Never is it made clear what the ecological class is or might be and who possibly populates it. The book is a loose and superficial collection of unpolished thoughts that barely make a cohesive narrative. The few interesting ideas that sprout occasionally are left underexplored. If you're interested in class struggle & the fight for a habitable planet nexus, read some good eco-marxists instead.

To close with a positive, a couple of good quotes:

"The world to which modernization blindly led quite simply doesn't exist."
"Your territory is whatever you depend on, no matter how far you have to go to feel what holds you in its grip."

[سیاووش · Rating 4 out of 5]

I... don't know if this was the best introduction to Latour and his ecological theories but well, it was mine. apparently there's something called an "ecological class"* who is supposed to take over just like the bourgeoisie did after the feudal times, and I couldn't exactly figure out what that class is or where it comes from but its goal is not "development", but "envelopment" and it takes into account the "engendering practices" that are done by nonhumans and make the world we live in (which is different than the world that we live off) possible.
I barely understood half of it, but it made me SO curious. A revolutionary idea that is rooted in itself, and not in the various traditions of socialism and liberalism that came before it? That sounds so interesting and an important thing to know about. I also have a dozen questions about the half that I did understand, which makes me think maybe I should've attended the very high-quality class that I'd taken this semester and just ignored up until now.

* as in, like, a group of people, not a sociology of ecology class for which I read this book. Also the teacher doesn't call his class "sociology of economy". The syllabus is titled "syllabus towards an ecological class" about whose meaning I have indeed no idea because I haven't been attending the class unfortunately.

And I really am sorry that anything I write is just a reflection of my scattered little brain that I can't seem to get a hold of.

[Jonas Keen · Rating 2 out of 5]

2/5- Sehr gutmütige 2 Sterne. Ich sehe die grundsätzliche Notwendigkeit eines Fokus auf Klassenbewusstsein in Kombination mit Ökologie, nur leider hat das Buch a) nichts zu Entstehung einer Ökologischen Klasse erzählt, sondern mehr darüber, warum es diese braucht. Also nicht wirklich praxisnah mit wenigen Ideen, wie man das tatsächlich umsetzen kann, und b) den Historischen Materialismus komplett fehlgedeutet. Es wurde missverstanden, dass es sich beim HiMa um eine Wissenschaft handelt, welche sehr nachvollziehbar erläutert, warum es eine klassenbewusste, kommunistische, Gesellschaft benötigt. Wenn man sich auf andere Wissenschaften (Theorien) bezieht, sollte man diese mMn auch richtig wiedergeben und diese korrekt auf die eigene Vorlage übertragen, kontrahieren.

[Hannah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Und deswegen #wirfahrenzusammen!

[Anders Schröder · Rating 3 out of 5]

At the very beginning of the paperback, it is written that this memo, or manifesto if you will, is aimed towards "member of ecological parties and their present and future electors". As a long standing member of an ecological party, do I find that Latour and Schultz work is a useful contribution for those of us who want to build a larger green movement? The answer is: mostly no, but the book might still be worth reading.

Latour and Schultz's manifesto, like many political theoretical texts, identify some interesting problems and asks an interesting overarching question: How can the green movement win the battle of ideas by uniting different social groups into a single movement with a collective identity? An ecological class. The question is interesting, but it's premises can be questioned. Latour and Schultz assumes that politics revolves around the battle of ideas. With enough books, songs, art and think pieces, an ecological class consciousness can emerge. I would argue that this is a misunderstanding of how class consciousness operates. Specifically, it ignores the power of economic self interests. "Peoples' energies used to flow from their ideals, understanding a situation was enough to mobilize. Today, the certainty of catastrophe seems rather to paralyze action" the authors note. But what if working people historically weren't driven by ideals, but by self interest? Latour and Schultz bemoans the lack of cultural production from the ecological class. Again, might this not be the result of a lack of economic incentives? Of course if you want to make culture that doesn't argue for the economic interests of powerful groups, it will be harder to get financing.

If you, like me, believe that economic factors is a more important driver of historical change than ideas, then the conclusions of this book becomes irrelevant since the premise they are built on aren't accepted. Still, the green movement is sorely lacking when it comes to political theory, and even if I disagree with the book's conclusions, I still appreciate that it adds something to the green discourse, and some of it's analyses of what might constitute an ecological class can still be useful as a tool in other contexts. Read the book, but with a critical eye.

[Dorle Schmidt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Vielleicht liegt es an der Übersetzung aus dem Französischen, dass das Memorandum so schwierig zu lesen ist oder weil hier einiges neu gedacht werden muss und damit vage bleibt.
Das Nachwort, das Bezug nimmt auf Corona und den russischen Krieg in der Ukraine, ist um vieles konkreter und gibt auch zum Teil einen positiven Ausblick.

[Lilly · Rating 4 out of 5]

>>Alles muss sich radikal ändern<< - und nichts verändert sich.

[Simen Østbø · Rating 4 out of 5]

Spennende teorier, bør leses hvis du bryr deg om verden.

[Christina Hain · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ich bin ganz ehrlich: Ich habe mit diesem Buch abgeschlossen ohne es zu Ende zu lesen :( Ich habe leider so wenig verstanden, dass es keinen Unterschied gemacht hätte …
Ich frage mich wer die Zielgruppe dieses Buches ist und was ich darüber denke „die Entstehung der ökologischen Klasse“ nur an eine sehr akademische Schicht zu richten ?
Nichts desto trotz habe ich gute Grundideen rausgelesen. Deshalb 2 Sterne.

[Siegfried · Rating 2 out of 5]

Les auteurs mettent quelque part en opposition une “nouvelle classe” ecologique avec ceux qui ne ciblaient que un acroissement de “la production”. Comme si notre monde actuel n’etait que materiel. Quid de la société du service, du Spotify qui a remplace les disques, de la generation smartphone? Je suis reste (tres) sur ma faim.

[Djomlaart]

- compared to previois classes that were layered based on capital/income , ecological class is penetrating through existing class sistem as a strong agent to unify individuals across classer per their ecological beleif
- while ecological struggle is widley pressent among different groups , it lacks clearer articulation and classificstion (what is the ecological struggle, the caracheristics) in order to define ecological class that would fuel the movement. we’re lacking who is the ecological class and who is the enemy
- key difference from the marcist materilism and class stuggle is the focus shift to on how to keep the conditions of habitable earth (compared to marxism
where the focus was on means of production). the need for this shift stems mainly from the change of conditions in which we operate in and that during marx time there was no issues with habitability
- although the danger is imminent the effect is paralising instead of mobilising. additionally while previous class struggle was activating (“forward!”) today ecological
problems look inhibiting (“lets go backwards”) which is why they fail to activate people. in order to do so, they need to position the problem in a way that would seem instinctively activating ( in affect!) - for example “let’s keep the living conditions good / make them better - for all creatures“. and this is where the turnaround/new position is. aspect of living conditions was often neglected in marxist philosophy
- ecological class is the one taking taking care about making the planet habitable. this should reposition is as a progressive compared to reactionary. this superior position should enable its perception as progressive even when compared with other less inclusive ideologies, who compared to this can be perceived as reactionary

- the main issue is , although the ecological threat is imminent and obvious, it is not formulated in such a way that it successes to excite the state of affect! we are not able to tie it with a prosperity increase (which could excite the affectionate state), rather than that we perceive it as something that's imposing boundaries (contrary to the modern tendency to overcome different boundaries).
the paradigm shift that we belong to the earth and not vice versa yet needs to be formulated in such way that it excises a positive state (which will then lead to an action)
-we need to stop perceiving the world as a fixed place, where every problem can be "solved" based on the set of known and unknown physic laws, and instead adapt to the ever-changing unstable world we are a part of (as shown in Covid where we continuously had to adapt the existing vaccines to the mutating virus)
- compared to the previous/existing movement, the ecological one is characterized by it's ideads being spread in different directions, while previous movement were more linear in it's ideas/goals/focus ("the arrow of time")
- the idea that was on my mind for the whole time since the 'we are a part of the ecosystem, it's not something that stands across us' idea was introduced is how that perspective is similar to the one that anthropologists described in their resereach on various tribes. finally, that fact is mentioned here, and how now we can learn from these tribes to live together with earth and not just look at it as a resource
-interesting idea of how boomers lived well by taking from (our) future which as a consequence left us (future generations) with very little
- in order to dissipate ideas and take movement, ecological class must form an institutional/media/art front, otherwise this space will (and is) get filled out with other ideas. the absence of ecological class/ideas from the art is worrying
- again - positioning the ecology /earth not something that is outside the current society, something that stands across us, BUT instead something that is the integral part of the system that we all are dependent off (this was somehow overlooks by preexisting modernist movements)
- focus is needed on the work that needs to be done in order to define the new terms and concepts that can be used in this class struggle
- by looking at other organisms in this new (not only biological way) as the part of the same system as us , we can learn about society, values, spirituality (again this perspective is not so different from the one described by certain antrophologists, or experiments by Jonathon Keats)

- in order to drive any change ecological class must enrole in political struggle. in order to do so it needs to first to set the infrastructure in order to prepare the field for it's political activism
- here the good example of such system is EU/Europe, despite all of it's fallacy, because it is removing all national borders and ownership, and creating a system for a cohabitation which is the role of ecological class


-compared to previous revolutions that were “activating” ecological one is “inhibiting” and that is why se don’t see much movement. previous revolution and class struggle were aimed at distributing ownership and increasing production so the individual can benefit from increased production vs in the ecological class/revolution there is not yet a perception about benefit for the individual, rather - one should decrease the production and benefits for itself in order for our enviroment to benefit

[Don · Rating 3 out of 5]

In this brief text two sociologist try to think their way through the vexed question of agency in the fight to mitigate the effects of climate catastrophe and the move towards an ecologically sustainable future. The senior of the pair, Bruno Letour, died last October at the age of 75, with a formidable reputation as a sociologist (or sometimes anthropologist) of science. What they offer up here are some brief but stimulating thoughts on what an ‘ecological class’ might be and how it wages its struggle.

The authors argue that the agency for effecting change has to shift from the working class to its ecological equivalent in order to move on from what they call ‘productivism’. This refers to the bias within the Marxian tradition favouring a social system privileging the reproduction of human beings. What we actually need is the maintenance of the conditions for the habitability of the whole planet to be placed at the centre of the new politics. The entire web of life – from the fecundity of soil, through the microbes and on to the mammals which work together in nature for mutual sustenance – needs to be preserved and taken forward into the future.

The memo claims that this in a reinforced version of materialism and to that extent makes the general framework of Marxism still relevant as a guide to action. But it seems to portend a desperate race against time and the authors are a long way from being convinced that ecological class struggle stands a real chance of coming out on top. They set out the social process through which classes emerge over time as social forces capable of acting in their own interests: firstly, the glimmering sense that they actually have interests which allow them to mark the distinction between potential allies and adversaries. Then a consciousness of the way interests are violated, producing awareness of grievances which can become the basis of petitions and programmes demanding rectification. This provides the impetus for the formation of parties and other organs of class power, and then the scope for a wide range of activity from voting, striking through to street fighting, which is the stuff of class struggle.

E.P. Thompson gives us the best case studying of this process as it worked though in history, with the gloomy prognosis that it takes decades, if not centuries to emerge as developed class consciousness. But the ecological crisis which provides the time frame for the rise of the new social force tells us that this will all have to be completed by, at the latest, 2050, if catastrophic climate change and species collapse is not to become irreversible. All of this is readily conceded in the terse paragraphs of the memo.

One of the problems in the way the argument develops lie in the implication that productivism is a barrier to the emerge of the more expansive consciousness of the need to maintain the whole web of life which is the central feature of political ecologism. Is that really the case? Is there really no route leading from a consideration of what is needed for human beings to reproduce that doesn’t flow into a greater awareness of the need to preserve planetary systems which sustain all life?

Proletarian class struggle has across the ages shown a willingness to engage in battles to improve the environment in which working people subsist. All the evidence of the struggles of the subaltern classes over the right to access to green spaces, including to wander freely across land sequestered as private property serving capitalist interests point to an awareness of at least some areas of ecology as touching on class interests. The widespread concern for animal life, manifested as the rearing of household pets should not be dismissed as a trivial manifestation of an desire to be a part of a larger life web.

If these can be taken as pointers indicating an intuitive awareness that human beings can only prosper if they remain in material and psychological contact with their environment then we can at least hope that the bridge between old-style class consciousness and the mindfulness that is required of the ecological class is open and available to be crossed. If there are obstacles which prevent passage ought we not be looking at the impediments which are engendered by such ideological deformation of class struggle, such at nationalism and revisionist social democracy? It’s a tough enough ask, but moving beyond these in the next few decades remains our best hope of averting the ecological collapse we are currently on, currently looming by the fateful date of 2050.

[Roisin · Rating 4 out of 5]

“An ‘ecological class’ is necessary to offer both a new description and new perspectives for action at the same time” (6)

“Taking on responsibility, on every issue, on every territory for the world we live in by explicitly connecting it to the world we live off, extends the horizon of action.” (25)

“everything that allows us to superimpose the world we live in and the world we live off in the same legal, affec-tive, moral, institutional and material whole will be considered progressive or, better still, emancipatory; everything that weakens, ignores or denies this link of superimposition will be considered reactionary. As a result, it's now the whole congregation of modernising classes that looks completely outdated.” (29)

“Nature isn’t a victim to be protected; it’s what protects us […] we are nature defending itself.” (35)

“The old ruling classes betrayed us […] they were heading for a utopia that rapidly ebbed away. The world to which modernisation blindly led quite simply doesn’t exist.”

[Bastian Käsbauer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Spannend ist, dass hier die Natur neu begriffen werden soll. Man müsse sich erstmal Gedanken darüber machen auf was man angewiesen ist, lautet eine der Devisen. Die ökologische Klasse ist dabei etwas was die alten Klassen überkommen muss, das Fortschrittsversprechen aufgeben und den Kompasspfeil der Progressivität neu ausrichten muss. Was mir in dieser Analyse fehlt, ist aber die Frage wie sich eigentlich die alten Klassengegensätze aufheben bzw. fortsetzen. Latour und Schultz sind nicht blind gegenüber der sozialen Klassenfrage, im Gegenteil sie nehmen eine Neudeutung vor. Offen bleibt dabei für mich allerdings worin sich der Klassengegensatz formiert.

[Hannerrr · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ich möchte von den Dächern der Stadt rufen, wie blöde ich dieses Buch fand. Ein völlig uninformierter, missverstandener Klassenbegriff trifft auf ständige Verwirrungen des Soll- und Ist-Zustands und ein seltsames Geschichtsverständnis. Die Grundprämisse ist unlogisch (es bräuchte eine ökologische Klasse, da sich Menschen aufgrund ihrer Klassenzugehörigkeit politisch organisieren und sie sind in dieser Klasse, weil sie sich ihr ohnehin zugehörig fühlen?). Das einzig spannende waren die Überlegungen über die Moderne, die sich möglicherweise in dem dies betreffenden Buch von Latour ausführlicher wiederfinden lassen.

[Ginette A. · Rating 2 out of 5]

L’idée de classe écologique est intéressante, et il y a quelques bonnes citations. Mais, bien que le sous-titre semble vanter une sorte de mode d’emploi pour faire émerger une telle classe, je n’y ai pas trouvé de propositions concrètes, à part quelques lieux communs du genre « cartographier les alliés et les ennemis ». Oui, merci, on y avait pensé tous seuls… Pour le reste, on suit une réflexion vague et un peu courte sur l’écologie en tant qu’objet politique.
J’avais beaucoup entendu parler de ce livre dans les cercles écologistes, mais je ne comprends pas la hype.

[Avery C. M. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this says a lot of important things about the way we view ourselves in the world, or as a product of the world. The disappointing account of the history of climate research is incredibly depressing, and we do need to change the way we think about success and society in order to adapt. The state of our politics is really a shame given the horrible status of not only the atmosphere, but our drinking water and food chain--this book doesn't talk about those issues, but they are related. No one seems to be taking the problem seriously.

[Wael Gamal]

كتاب مكتوب بصيغة المذكرة ومقسم لنقاط تحت عناوين الفصول ومكتوب من قبل فيلسوف فرنسي مهم وتلميذه في الأغلب وفي موضوع شديد الأهمية هو تفتت الحركات الايكولوجية في معركة وجودية. ويالها من خيبة أمل. نموذج على "التفلسف" الأجوف عند كتاب فرنسيين عدة صادفهم الواحد والممزوج بألعاب لغوية وادعاء تجديد النظرة للطبقة والتاريخ. كتاب يدعو لتجاوز انتظار تحول وعي الطبقات الكلاسيكي ويعول في الوقت ذاته على معركة أفكار، وياللعجب، تجمع أعداء طبقيين.

[Adam Welz · Rating 4 out of 5]

A must-read for anyone thinking about & working on transforming society to be less environmentally damaging. Refreshing bursts of clarity throughout. Challenging in the best sort of way, with lots of good questions, even if it sometimes serves up unsatisfying answers. Short sections make it easy to get through.

Lost 1 star because of occasional slides into silly & impenetrable intellectualese; could have been more clearly translated, perhaps?

[Justin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wir müssen nicht die Natur schützen, wie müssen uns vor der Natur schützen. Die Natur gewinnt immer!

[Josefine · Rating 5 out of 5]

How do I get everyone to read this book? One of my most important reads of 2023.

[Eilif]

An interseting jumping off point for further reflection – left with more questions than answers

[Mikel Bilbao · Rating 2 out of 5]

2/5 siendo generoso

[Jonna Meyer-Spasche · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gelesen für die Sommerakademie, als Diskussionsgrundlage gut, aber ansonsten ziemlich voraussetzungsvoll (die ganzen soziologischen Begriffe und die Fachdiskussion darum)

[Lucie Mrw · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un petit livre sur les classes qui sont attribuées à l'écologie.
Tout y passe : mouvement, politique, social.