How is it possible to account for the double dimension of the “anthropos” of the Anthropocene? At once both a responsible, historical subject and a neutral, nonconscious, and nonreflexive force? According to Dipesh Chakrabarty, the “anthropos” has to be considered a geological force; according to Daniel Lord Smail, it has to be considered an addicted brain. A subjectivity without being for the former, an emotional and dependent biological and symbolic entity for the latter. As an in-between solution, this essay proposes a rereading of the concept of “mentality” proposed by Fernand Braudel and his followers from the Annales School. The mental would be intermediarily located between the inorganic and the neural, thus helping to fill the gap between two opposed concepts of history that are both implied in the current redefinition of ecology.
Skip Nav Destination
January 1, 2017
Ian Baucom Matthew Omelsky
Research Article| January 01 2017
The Brain of History, Or, the Mentality of the Anthropocene
South Atlantic Quarterly (2017) 116 (1): 39–53.
Catherine Malabou; The Brain of History, Or, the Mentality of the Anthropocene. South Atlantic Quarterly 1 January 2017; 116 (1): 39–53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-3749304
Download citation file:
Don't already have an account? Register
You could not be signed in. Please check your email address / username and password and try again.
Could not validate captcha. Please try again.
Sign in via your InstitutionSign In