Anthropocene angst: Authentic geology and stratigraphic sincerity

In March 2024, the Anthropocene Working Group's proposal for a formal Anthropocene Series/Epoch of the Geologic Time Scale was formally rejected by the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy. What does the failed formalization effort reveal about the relationship between science and normativity under conditions of 'climate crisis'? Drawing on four years of ethnographic observation of the Anthropocene Working Group, this article explains how the Group developed its proposal, why it failed, and what it reveals about the social construction of geological truth. The effort to formalize an Anthropocene unit was based on a coupling of science and politics, wherein geo-scientists could make normative assertions in the register of scientific fact. Ultimately, the Group failed because it was seen as appropriating incumbent geological techniques to advance claims about the future, transitioning geology from a descriptive science about the past to a site of warning.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Social Studies of Science
Published
2024-11-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127241282309
Citations
6
Primary Topic
Climate Change and Geoengineering
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.70

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Anthropocene angst: Authentic geology and stratigraphic sincerity

Alexander Damianos
6 citations
Social Studies of Science
Climate Change and Geoengineering
1.70
article

Anthropocene angst: Authentic geology and stratigraphic sincerity

Alexander Damianos
article en
6 citations

Abstract

In March 2024, the Anthropocene Working Group's proposal for a formal Anthropocene Series/Epoch of the Geologic Time Scale was formally rejected by the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy. What does the failed formalization effort reveal about the relationship between science and normativity under conditions of 'climate crisis'? Drawing on four years of ethnographic observation of the Anthropocene Working Group, this article explains how the Group developed its proposal, why it failed, and what it reveals about the social construction of geological truth. The effort to formalize an Anthropocene unit was based on a coupling of science and politics, wherein geo-scientists could make normative assertions in the register of scientific fact. Ultimately, the Group failed because it was seen as appropriating incumbent geological techniques to advance claims about the future, transitioning geology from a descriptive science about the past to a site of warning.

Social Studies of ScienceVol. 55(3)
University of Kent (GB)
Economic and Social Research Council
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 16%
Climate Change and Geoengineering
1.70
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Anthropocene angst: Authentic geology and stratigraphic sincerity — Alexander Damianos · Social Studies of Science (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS