Contemplative Freedom in the Anthropocene: Inspiration from Sloterdijk

Abstract

Contemplative Freedom in the Anthropocene:Inspiration from Sloterdijk Jessica Ludescher Imanaka (bio) What new meaning of freedom can be found in the Anthropocene,1 and how can it be accessed in support of ethics and justice regarding environmental issues? It is clear that the current and future conditions of the Anthropocene will engender problems of ethics and justice of unprecedented nature and magnitude, requiring reconceptualizations of theories and praxes. As freedom has remained a core value and constituent concept in numerous theories of ethics and justice, at least in the West, it is worth considering the future of freedom in the Anthropocene. The German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk has proposed provocative possibilities for such reconceptualizations that prove fecund because his theories deal explicitly with ecological crises while drawing from diverse and opposed political perspectives. In a short book called Stress and Freedom, Sloterdijk reimagines the meaning of freedom, as interacting with stress in what I show to be a mutually transformative process. Freedom paradoxically retreats from stress so as to brave it with noble liberality. Such reconfigurations of freedom become more lucid once its interrelationship with stress is considered in connection with Sloterdijk's provocative environmental writings. This article sketches a vision for contemplative freedom based on the writings of Sloterdijk. I here explore his suggestive concept of freedom, as freedom from stress and "availability for the improbable" (Sloterdijk 2016b, 54), and exhibit its interconnection with his account of the demands placed upon us by the "Great Catastrophe" of ecological crises (Sloterdijk 2013, 44). I begin by articulating Sloterdijk's theory of society as a "stress integrated force field" in Stress and Freedom (Sloterdijk 2016, 6) and analyze this view in light of environmental stresses, which generate stressful freedom. Although Sloterdijk does not articulate the meaning of freedom explicitly in the context of environmental issues, I draw out the environmental implications. I then examine Sloterdijk's account of freedom in relation to stress and reveal the interactive dimensions of this relationship, arguing that his view of freedom transcends the left/right divide. I show how Sloterdijk draws from both leftist and conservative [End Page 297] conceptions of freedom but then moves beyond them with a Nietzschean twist. Sloterdijk's notion of freedom may be linked with his ideas of anthropotechnics, especially when stress and freedom are brought into dialectical interplay. I reveal the contemplative dimensions of his account of freedom, highlighting how freedom's dynamic tension with stress holds potential for fruitful reengagement with ecocrises. Integrating ideas from several of Sloterdijk's texts, I sketch a vision of contemplative freedom oriented toward a becoming-human anew in the Anthropocene. Proposing some reconfigurations of this vision, I conclude with Sloterdijk's hope for monogeistic co-immunity. Stressful Freedom in the Anthropocene In Stress and Freedom, Sloterdijk draws upon stress theory to propose that "the large-scale political bodies we call societies should be understood primarily as stress-integrated force fields" (2016b, 6). Societies find cohesion and "synchronization of consciousness" in response to stress-provoking stimulations, which are mainly propagated by the media (7). The media system produces agitating stimuli, which it continually updates and disseminates, generating topics of "concern" that bind the society symbolically (7–8). The book eventually focuses on a modern conception of freedom, which Sloterdijk attributes to Rousseau's view of freedom as the contemplative retreat from social persecution, an account that amounts to an individualistic removal from social reality and its stresses. Stress is defined as a kind of unfreedom, freedom as a form of nonstress. Sloterdijk's account of stress-induced unity appears to apply most easily to cultural similarity and identification, though he suggests it pertains to multicultural societies. It also could explain how subnational and transnational societies emerge, as groups bond over their shared sense of stress priorities and apprehension of what is stressful. Popular media vary intranationally as well as internationally. For example, political parties bond over perceived threats posed by the opposing tribe, and countries ally with each other in response to inimical forces. However, this account of the formation and maintenance of social cohesion remains incomplete by itself, since other elements, not least historical and legal ones, contribute to the formation and...