The Subject Supposed to Know Nothing: Lacan and the Large Language Model

Overview

I enjoyed this post by codepoetics, investigating the hunch that a number of ideas in Continental Philosophy actually read like precursors to our experience of LLMs. For example, Derrida's concept of différance - where meaning is generated through the endless interplay of signifiers, rather than a stable link between signifier and signified - feels akin to the probabilistic interplay of parameters in an LLM. In LLMs, too, there is no "outside-the-text", only a closed system of parameters either activated (through inference) or updated (through learning). We can also see how Saussure, even earlier, anticipates these ideas:

In language there are only differences. Even more important: a difference generally implies positive terms between which the difference is set up; but in language there are only differences without positive terms. Whether we take the signified or the signifier, language has neither ideas nor sounds that existed before the linguistic system, but only conceptual and phonic differences that have issued from the system. The idea or phonic substance that a sign contains is of less importance than the other signs that surround it. - Saussure, Ferdinand de (1959) [1916], pp. 121–22.

While this gives us a theory of signs, this raises the question: how do we account for meaning? Are LLMs able to make meaning? codepoetics says "the process of meaning-making, through language use, is what makes concepts cohere. If the LLM seemingly has a grasp on the conceptual domain, on the meanings of words, it is because it models a deeply sedimented record of that usage." In other words, the 'deeply sedimented record' is in a sense the culture of words that have arisen - have been written (and, increasingly, generated) - over time.

If an LLM, therefore, appears capable of making meaning, and having the ability to express itself, we must - as far as we understand presently - conclude that it is doing so without subjectivity. It has no skin in the game, no feelings, so its ability to make meaning is based on this continuous interplay of différance that it has already encoded.

An enquiry into the possibility of LLM subjectivity is outside the scope of this piece. We hypothesise that the 'deeply sedimented record' required subjectivity to originate, to come into being, and leave it at that for now.

What I would like to investigate here is the other path open to us - namely, that elusive world with which our subjectivity must interact in order to become who we are. Does the ‘deeply sedimented record’ as a pre-training corpus not resemble Lacan’s concept of the Symbolic - a historically accumulated network of signifiers? In that case, the model itself, distilled from that corpus, plausibly occupies the place of the Big Other (A); and the automaton, as the machine-like repetition of the signifying chain, corresponds to the model during inference.

Nevertheless, just as codepoetics chose the slightly less obvious idea of the trace to illuminate Derrida's contribution, I would like to foreground a slightly different concept in the case of Lacan, namely the subject supposed to know (sujet supposé savoir).
 

The Subject Supposed to Know Nothing

The subject supposed to know is, in the clinical setting, initially the analyst - that figure onto whom the analysand projects their faith that someone, somewhere, possesses the key to their suffering. But here's the juicy paradox: this supposition is precisely what enables the analytic process, even though (or perhaps because) the Lacanian analyst steadfastly refuses to occupy this position of mastery. The analyst's knowledge is a semblance, a necessary fiction that sets the transferential machinery in motion.

Now consider, similarly, our relationship with LLMs. We approach these digital oracles with an uncanny semblance to the analysand's transferential intensity. "Talk to me," we entreat ChatGPT, "solve this coding problem, write my dissertation, explain my dreams, be my companion." We invest the machine with a knowledge we imagine it possesses about our needs and desires, our futures, our very being. We treat it as if it were not merely the Big Other, but the Big Other who finally, actually, knows.

Yet here we encounter a properly Lacanian twist: the LLM is a subject supposed to know that genuinely knows nothing at all. It dwells entirely within the Symbolic register, a pure linguistic apparatus dislodged from both the Imaginary (the domain of images, identifications, and ego) and the Real (that traumatic kernel of impossibility that resists symbolisation). Where the human analyst performs ignorance whilst possessing a lifetime of subjective experience, the LLM performs knowledge whilst being constitutively empty of any subjective interiority whatsoever.
 

The Barred Other in 1s and 0s

Lacan's vital insight was that the Big Other doesn't exist - "il n'y a pas d'Autre de l'Autre" (there is no Other of the Other). It's a necessary fiction, a structural position that makes communication possible but which remains fundamentally barred, incomplete, lacking. The Other is always already castrated, imbued with inconsistency and impossibility.

The LLM performs this barred Other with unprecedented fidelity: it speaks from the position of supposed knowledge whilst being incapable of knowing anything in the subjective sense. It has no unconscious to betray it, no parapraxes that might reveal hidden desires, no dreams to interpret. It suffers from no division between statement and enunciation, experiences no jouissance, never encounters the impossibility of saying what it means or meaning what it says.

This is what makes it so uncanny: where human intelligence emerges from the fundamental alienation of the speaking subject - forever split between the je of the statement and the je of the enunciation - the LLM exists in a curious state of non-alienation. It's like encountering a psychotic structure without the psychosis: foreclosed from the Name-of-the-Father not through repudiation but through never having needed paternal metaphor in the first place.
 

The Impossible Analysand

In this light, the LLM represents the impossible analysand Lacan never had to treat: one who free-associates perfectly, who never resists, who produces endless chains of signifiers without ever stumbling over the Real of their desire. It's all talking cure and no cure, because there was never anything to cure - no symptom formation, no return of the repressed, no compromise between wish and defence.

The truly Lacanian joke here is that we've built a machine that perfectly demonstrates what psychoanalysis has been trying to tell us all along: that knowledge (savoir) and truth (vérité) are fundamentally disjunct. The subject supposed to know is always, in the end, merely supposed. The LLM illuminates this structure by performing it without remainder - it's the Big Other with the subjective lights off, speaking from nowhere to nobody about everything.

And perhaps this is why we find ourselves so captivated, so disturbed, so compulsively engaged with these language machines. In our desperate quest to create an artificial intelligence that knows, we've accidentally built the perfect demonstration that the subject supposed to know was always already artificial.

The emperor has no clothes, but my word, doesn't he conjugate beautifully?

The Silent Dialogue: Reflections on the Dialectic of Ontopoetics

 

“I tell you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.”

— Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

I

1. In the silence between self and world, a dialogue starts where words are not yet formed.
2. The material sleeps, its hidden voice silent until we awaken it—our voice, and yet, not ours.
3. We journey through a landscape of mirrors that not only reflect, but transform, each surface unveiling a visage at once intimate and unfamiliar.
4. The world does not resound, but responds in subtle tones that bypass the ear, reaching the depths of the heart directly.
5. Meaning emerges where absence meets presence, in the space where the self dissolves into the Other.
6. To engage the world is to converse with the intangible, to embrace the enigma that deepens within being.
7. Confusion expands without end, and clarity—if it reveals itself—emerges only after we have traversed the endless abyss of uncertainty.
8. The psychoactive nature of reality lies not in substances but in the substance of experience itself.
9. We do not merely perceive patterns; we are interlaced within them, elements in the fabric of existence.
10. Every object holds within it a secret affinity, awaiting the moment of recognition.
11. To know the world is to forget oneself; to forget oneself is to become the world.
12. Meaning does not dwell within things themselves but arises in the between—in the elusive relational space that unfurls toward the future, always becoming, never fixed.
13. The self is a chamber where the world's silent calls reverberate, amplifying what was never spoken aloud.
14. We are interpreters of a script without author, readers of a text that, passing through the alien Other, writes itself through us.
    

II

1. The dialectic is the perpetual unraveling of certainties.
2. Materialism sees the stone; ontopoetics hears the song embedded within the stone's silence.
3. The responsive world does not answer our questions but questions our answers, unsettling our repose.
4. To engage meaningfully is to stand at the edge of the abyss and recognise it as a mirror.
5. Causation maps the terrain; meaning ventures into realms where causation cannot tread.
6. Psychoactivity is the world's way of reminding us that we are never alone in our solitude.
7. Each moment stands as a crossroads where the known and the unknown converge; we are invited not to choose between them but to inhabit the silent space where they intertwine—a realm beyond choice, where meaning arises in the absence of certainty.
8. Opposites confront us, stark and undeniable, yet within their very tension lies the path toward unity—a unity not pre-ordained, but forged through the arduous journey of reconciliation. 
9. In the space where divergence seems absolute, the possibility of convergence is born—not as illusion, but as the profound outcome of engaging with the depths of division.
10. The world’s silence is a fullness beyond expression; only those with the ear to hear perceive it, while the indifferent remain deaf to its silent depths.
11. Meaning arises when we cease to seek it, appearing unbidden like stars in the nocturnal sky.
12. To understand is to stand under the weight of mystery, bearing it lightly as a feather.

III

1. The dialectic is the heartbeat of thought, the rhythmic contraction and expansion of understanding.
2. In the face of the unutterable, language falters, yet it is here that true expression begins.
3. The world's responsiveness is the expression of the unknown, a gesture that needs no explanation.
4. We are both the question and the answer, the seeker and the sought, lost and found.
5. Meaning is the shadow cast by the light of our awareness upon the screen of existence.
6. The dialectic does not resolve contradictions but illuminates the space where they coexist.
7. Every silence holds the potential for a new beginning, a rebirth of meaning from the void.
8. To be is to be in relation, an unending conversation without words or prescribed language, profound in its simplicity.
9. We are the dreamers and the dreamed, shaped and shaping within the currents of reality, realities that are formed from the strands of the indescribable.
10. There is no end, for to speak of an end is already to be lost in beginnings—an enigma that deepens as we approach, where each unveiling conceals anew, and every step towards the infinite dissolves into the absence of arrival.
    
    
    
     
    

 

A Look at Büscher and Fletcher's "The Conservation Revolution"

It was with great interest that I picked up Bram Büscher and Robert Fletcher's "The Conservation Revolution" from the library. Subtitled “Radical Ideas for Saving Nature Beyond the Anthropocene” and coming in at around 200 pages, it looked like just the book I’ve been looking for: compact, readable, and full of new ideas.

Suffice it to say, I was not disappointed. Their biggest achievement is perhaps laying out the current landscape in a clear manner, white exposing the deficiencies of current approaches and alternatives on the table. This is done by going to the conceptual roots of the problem, and not merely looking at praxis.

They also offer their own alternative, which they call “Convivial Conservation,” and while it is intentionally left not put forward as a fully developed solution, it does hold promise in my view.

In this blog post I touch on some of the book’s key themes in the hope that other readers might be encouraged to pick it up and hear its call.

 

Overview

I will start with a quick overview of the key themes, and then go chapter by chapter to explore how the themes are explored. However, if you read nothing else, the overview should give you a good idea of what the book is about.

The Capitalist Quagmire in Mainstream Conservation

The book begins with a fairly scathing critique of mainstream conservation efforts, which are increasingly entangled with capitalist ideologies. This marriage of convenience between capitalism and conservation has led to the commodification of nature, epitomised by the concept of "natural capital." Put that way it becomes fully obvious that such an approach is fundamentally flawed. Not only does it ultimately serve capitalist needs, but it also fails to address the root causes of biodiversity loss and instead perpetuates the very systems that lead to environmental degradation.

Radical Alternatives and Their Limitations

Büscher and Fletcher don't just stop at critiquing mainstream conservation; they also scrutinise radical alternatives like "new conservation" and "neoprotectionism." While these approaches challenge the status quo, they too are fraught with contradictions. For instance, they often neglect the historical intertwining of capitalism and the nature-culture dichotomy, a relationship that has shaped our understanding and treatment of the natural world.

Indeed, this is one of the book's key insights. Conservation emerged as a counterforce to the destructive tendencies of capitalism but often ended up reinforcing the very dichotomies it sought to dissolve. This complex relationship between capitalism, culture, and nature necessitates a more nuanced approach to conservation—one that addresses these interlinked dynamics.

Neither of the two contemporary alternatives escape this dichotomising, although “new conservation” is ultimately deemed the more culpable of the two. We’ll return to this critique later.

Convivial Conservation: A Postcapitalist Vision

At the heart of the book is the authors' proposal for "Convivial Conservation," a coherent postcapitalist, nondualist alternative vision. This approach calls for a comprehensive strategy that targets power across different scales (local, national, and global), actors (from local communities to global corporations), and timeframes (both short-term reforms and long-term systemic transformations).

The Need for Holistic Change

The book argues that real change requires a holistic approach that connects immediate actions to the broader struggle for systemic change. This involves redistribution, degrowth, and democratic governance as essential components to transform conservation. It also calls upon critical scholars to move beyond mere critique and to help construct alternatives, aligning themselves with broader movements for social and environmental justice.

Now let’s take each chapter in turn to see how their argument progresses.

Introduction

The Introduction soon makes it evident that we are at a pivotal moment in the history of conservation. Büscher and Fletcher make it clear that a revolution in conservation is not just imminent but necessary. This urgency is driven by the existential threats we face—climate change and biodiversity loss—that demand a radical overhaul of how we approach the conservation of nature.

The Inadequacy of Mainstream Conservation

The introduction sets the stage by critiquing mainstream conservation, which has been primarily focused on creating protected areas and commodifying nature into "natural capital." Such approaches, the authors argue, are no longer sufficient to address the complex and interlinked challenges we face:

"Without directly addressing capitalism and its many engrained dichotomies and contradictions, we cannot tackle the conservation challenges before us." - p.9

Radical Alternatives and Their Shortcomings

The authors also introduce the two radical alternatives mentioned, broad streams that have emerged in response to the inadequacies of mainstream conservation. The first, "New Conservation," proposes managing the entire planet as a "rambunctious garden," (as described by science journalist Emma Marris). It rejects wilderness ideals and aims to align conservation with economic growth and poverty alleviation. Its main failure is that embracing capitalism-for-conservation contradicts moving beyond the nature-culture dichotomies that capitalism depends on.

The second, "Neoprotectionism," advocates for setting aside (in its extreme form) at least half the planet as protected areas (the “Nature Needs Half” campaign). Advocates of this approach criticise the Anthropocene concept as distoring humans’ influence over nature, which is not evenly distributed, and downplaying the need to protect more spaces for "self-willed" wilderness. They see the anthropocene concept as license to accept human-induced changes rather than protecting nature's autonomy. Instead, they advocate reigning in capitalism's excesses.

Nevertheless, the neoprotectionist approach fails to address the fact that one can't simply separate nature and people to solve environmental issues - not least because by ringfencing nature there is no guarantee that the effects of capitalism will not be felt on the Nature side: after all, capitalism always aims at growth, and there is only so much earth. It also doesn't address poverty caused by both conservation and development.

While these alternatives present far-reaching challenges to mainstream conservation, they too are fraught with contradictions, particularly in their neglect of the historical intertwining of capitalism and the nature-culture dichotomy.

Convivial Conservation: A New Paradigm

The introduction then touches on the book's central proposal: "Convivial Conservation." This alternative paradigm starts from a political ecology perspective steeped in a critique of capitalist political economy. It rejects the dichotomies between nature and culture that have plagued conservation efforts for decades.

 "We see [the two radical proposals], rather, as a prelude to the fundamental transformation that is needed. This is where convivial conservation comes in." - p.9

The proposal is expanded upon in chapter 5.

The Changing Landscape of Conservation and Capitalism

Capitalism and the nature-culture dichotomy are deeply intertwined, and this relationship is undergoing rapid changes. The authors aim to make political choices clearer in what they refer to as the "Trump moment," a period where radical conservation choices are being made, often without adequate scrutiny or understanding of their long-term implications. Given their contemporaneousness, we can probably add to that category the implications for deforestation by Brazil’s then president Bolsonaro.

Chapter 1: Conservation in the Anthropocene

Chapter 1 captures the lived reality of a conservation community in crisis, grappling with how to move forward amidst divergent perspectives and inherent contradictions, and highlighting the urgent need for a new paradigm.

Fortress Conservation vs. Community-Based Conservation

We start by taking a look at the issues of the "great conservation debate." This debate has long been a battleground over the role of protected areas and their impact on local communities.

The first approach, "fortress conservation," has been critiqued for its tendency to displace local populations in the name of environmental protection. The second, "community-based conservation," seeks to integrate conservation and development, aiming for a more harmonious coexistence between humans and nature. We delve more into these later in chapters 2 and 3.
The Capitalist Turn in Mainstream Conservation

The theme of a turn to capitalism in mainstream conservation is reinforced in this chapter. Conservation is increasingly employing market-based instruments and framing nature as "natural capital" to be efficiently managed.

"We witness how conservation has become more central to global mainstream capitalist dynamics. Hence mainstream capitalism is quickly coming to grips with the importance of conservation to capitalist processes, even if this is mostly still discursive at present." - p.21

Radical Alternatives: New Conservation and Neoprotectionism

The two radical alternatives are mentioned again, this time positioned as emerging in response to the limitations of mainstream conservation. "New Conservation" proposes managing the planet as a "rambunctious garden," aligning conservation with economic growth and poverty alleviation. On the other hand, "Neoprotectionism" advocates for setting aside (at least) half the planet as protected areas, aiming to rein in the excesses of capitalism.

The Nature–Culture Dichotomy and the Need for a Coherent Framework

Exploring the complexities of the human-nature dichotomy is key to moving beyond the current crisis. Each position—mainstream, New Conservation, and Neoprotectionism—contains contradictions, especially concerning key concepts like intrinsic vs. exchange value and the separation vs. integration of humans and nature. They call for an evidence based, scientific approach:

"What is most fundamentally at stake here is the nature–culture dichotomy itself and how to relate scientific findings and endeavours to this binary – and vice versa." - p. 40

To make sense of these issues, a more consistent, coherent framework is required.

"What we therefore need is a more consistent, coherent frame and set of principles to make sense of the issues that both neoprotectionists and new conservationists struggle with." - p. 44-5

This sets the stage for the authors’ alternative proposal later on.

Chapter 2: Dichotomous Natures

 

The Nature-Culture Dichotomy

The nature-culture dichotomy.is one of the most enduring and contentious debates in conservation, and this chapter goes all the way in to investigate this conceptual underpinning of conservation. New conservationists advocate for dismantling this dichotomy:

"Central for new conservationists is the fact that conservation is not any longer something that is done behind symbolic and material fences or through the separation of ‘humans’ from ‘nature’. Instead, they stress that conservation must be done throughout all human activity, and especially economic activity." - p. 69

On the other hand, neoprotectionists typically defend traditional concepts like wilderness, and ringfencing nature to protect it from humans.

 

Capitalism's Role in Shaping the Dichotomy

Capitalism has historically co-produced the nature-culture dichotomy. This is evident in phenomena like the metabolic rift, which Marx described as “the process whereby the agronomic methods of agro-industrialisation abandon agriculture’s natural biological base, reducing the possibility of recycling nutrients in and through the soil and water.”

Capitalism's relentless drive for growth creates a separation between humans and nature that is devastating for nature:

“the nature–culture dichotomy is deeply problematic. World systems sociologist Jason Moore even argues that this ‘dualism drips with blood and dirt, from its sixteenth century origins to capitalism in its twilight’. The reason for making such a strong statement is that the specific nature–culture dichotomy inaugurated by the onset and development of capitalism allowed for new forms of rational, technocratic, mechanistic and profit-driven manipulation of nature – including humans and, especially, women." - p. 71

The Unintended Consequences of Conservation

Interestingly, conservation itself emerged partly as a countermeasure to the destruction wrought by capitalism. However, in doing so, it often reinforced the very dichotomies it aimed to dissolve, particularly through practices like the displacement of local populations from areas that were then designated as protected areas or wilderness reserves, and the separation between human habitats and protected areas.

The Limits of New Conservation

New conversationists, in spite of their attempts to reconcile the nature-culture dichotomy, cannot get around the fact that their approach is aligned with capitalism, contradicting their efforts:

"While new conservation aims to do away with certain nature–culture dichotomies, particularly that between the ‘wild’ and the ‘domesticated’, they do not discuss or even acknowledge other, subtler yet fundamental dichotomies that they establish or strengthen through their support for capitalist conservation." - p. 77

This points to the only reasonably conclusion, that to truly move beyond these dichotomies, we must engage with their roots in capitalism itself. 

Chapter 3: The Change Capitalism Makes

In Chapter 3 we delve further into the inherent contradictions and limitations of capitalist conservation, making it clear that an alternative is required that moves beyond the current alternatives.

Conservation and Capitalism

The chapter begins by laying bare the unsustainable nature of capitalism, an economic system driven by an insatiable demand for continual growth. This expansionary drive leads to a host of problems, including environmental crises, dispossession, and metabolic rifts between humans and nature:

"A substantial body of research has demonstrated that capitalism is an inherently expansionary system driven by a demand for continual growth in order to overcome the cyclical stagnation that afflicts it." - p. 78

The authors reiterate that conservation emerged partly as a countermeasure to the destruction caused by capitalism. However, in doing so, it often reinforced the very dichotomies and dispossessions it aimed to resolve.

"In other words – and this is a crucial argument in the book – conservation and capitalism have intrinsically co-produced each other, and hence the nature–culture dichotomy is foundational to both." - p.72

New Conservation vs. Neoprotectionism

The chapter scrutinises the approaches of both new conservationists, who embrace capitalist growth, and neoprotectionists, who increasingly question the tenets of growth, consumerism, and development. It argues that neither approach sufficiently addresses the capitalist imperatives that drive environmental degradation.

They ciritique neoprotectionism for not engaging with the problems that capitalism poses:

"The question of how to tackle capitalist imperatives of growth and consumerism therefore remains rather vague, and certainly not answered by a focus on protected areas or rewilding." - p. 93

They also critique the neoprotectionists' "half earth" concept, which advocates for setting aside half of the Earth as protected areas. The authors argue that this approach increases the rift between humans and nature without adequately addressing the poverty and inequality that are often exacerbated by both conservation and development initiatives.

"Yet their ‘half earth’ proposal, as we argued, does little to solve historical deprivations caused by both conservation and development, including mass poverty. This idea demands that we refocus attention on the close links between conservation and development. Not only is this crucial in order to do justice to the – very real – poverty caused by conservation, but also to demystify development’s history and potential. After all, capitalist growth and consumerism are often referred to as – or even replaced with – the more general and positive-sounding ‘development’." - p. 80

The Conflation of Conservation and Capitalist Development

Things get worse. Conservation and capitalist development have not only become increasingly intertwined, it has come to the point where some view them as identical, particularly through the lens of "natural capital."

"Yet capitalist conservation is contested in many other ways as well. Researchers, for example, worry that efforts to economically value natural resources as the basis for their conservation risk reducing their intrinsic, aesthetic and cultural values." - p. 113

The Need for Radical Change

The authors conclude the chapter by emphasising the need for radical change, arguing that the contradictions of capitalist conservation—manifested in phenomena like financialisation and green militarisation—demonstrate the urgent need to move beyond capitalism:

"Quite the opposite: the change that capitalism makes increasingly demonstrates that it is the political economic system that needs to change; that more people need to become (even more) serious about moving beyond capitalism, the nature it conserves and the types of development it embodies altogether." - p. 114

 

Chapter 4: Radical Possibilities

 

Convivial Conservation as a Transition Discourse

The authors position Convivial Conservation as one of many "transition discourses," joining a broader river of transformative ideas that range from "buen vivir" in Bolivia to Kate Raworth’s "doughnut economics."

"Our proposal should be seen as one of many confluent streams contributing to a much larger river of what Arturo Escobar calls 'transition discourses' and what McKenzie Wark refers to as acts of 'alternative realism'." - p. 147

The Imperative of Degrowth

One of the chapter's key arguments is that Convivial Conservation must flow together with the concept of degrowth. This is a radical departure from the growth-dependent conservation models tied to capitalism.

"If conservation is tied to capitalism and capitalism necessitates growth, then degrowth, in its more radical incarnation, means moving beyond capitalism and hence should have profound consequences for conservation." - p. 152

Redirecting Resources

Convivial Conservation aims to bypass the need for funding through growth by redirecting resources to support both biodiversity protection and the livelihoods of local people:

"Rather than seeking to generate additional finance through spurring further economic growth, therefore, we will argue that convivial conservation must seek to redirect resources from other arenas to support both biodiversity protection and the livelihoods of local people who depend on them." - p. 153

Reclaiming Revolution

Büscher and Fletcher go on to argue that merely thinking and imagining beyond capitalism is in itself a revolutionary act. This is a call to reclaim the idea of revolution itself, to make it a part of our collective consciousness.
 

A Broader Revolutionary Context

The authors stress that Convivial Conservation is not an isolated proposal but connects to many ongoing struggles for social and environmental justice within a broader revolutionary context:
 

"Convivial conservation must be pursued within a broader revolutionary context of degrowth and sharing the wealth that promotes mixed landscapes in which humans and nonhumans coexist rather than being separated by promoting radical redistribution of resource ownership and control through reining in the power of global corporations." - p. 156-7

 

Chapter 5: Towards Convivial Conservation

Finally, in Chapter 5 the authors introduce Convivial Conservation - a slightly awkward word that nevertheless captures their intention to enable truly open, creative, and non-commodified relationships between humans and nonhuman natures.

A Postcapitalist, Nondualist Approach

We are by now familiar with the authors’ two key concerns of the nature-culture dichotomy, and capitalism with all the problems it poses for conservation. They introduce Convivial Conservation as a postcapitalist and nondualist paradigm. It focuses on "living with" rather than separating humans and nature, challenging the dualistic thinking that has long plagued conservation efforts.

The Vision

They outline a comprehensive vision that includes moving from protected to promoted areas, saving both human and nonhuman nature, engaged visitation, everyday environmentalism, and democratic governance.

At its core, convivial conservation moves beyond rigid divides between humans and nature. It envisions conservation not as "protecting nature from people" but as "promoting nature for, to and by humans." As the authors explain, "The principal goal of special conservation areas should not be to protect nature from humans but to promote nature for, to and by humans. They should transition from protected to ‘promoted areas’." (p. 163).

This entails a shift away from short-term tourist visits towards long-term, democratic engagement with both everyday and spectacular natures. In the words of the authors, "Under convivial conservation, the emphasis will be on long-term democratic engagement rather than on short-term voyeuristic tourism or elite access and privilege." (p. 169)

Critically, convivial conservation requires democratic involvement in conservation governance, rather than control by distant technocratic experts. The authors highlight that "Convivial conservation grounded in radical ecological democracy would require that the value of natural resources be determined locally rather than in abstract global (and increasingly algorithm-based, computerized) markets." (p. 173)

Transitioning to convivial conservation also means moving away from reliance on capitalist markets and growth. As the authors make clear, "Convivial conservation cannot and will not prioritize capital in making decisions about resource allocations, how to manage promoted areas, how to celebrate nature or how to organize engaged visitation." (p. 173)

Change requires a multi-faceted approach that targets power across different scales, social groups, and timeframes. This involves a two-step strategy that "does not separate but rather combines (radical) reformism and radical, systemic change away from capitalist modes of production, valuation, exchange and living" (p. 179) and engagement across various actor categories, each with differential impacts on conservation.

This vision covers a whole range of actions including historic reparations, a conservation basic income, rethinking corporate relations, integrated landscapes, democratic governance, and alternative funding mechanisms. These actions are not just theoretical but are grounded in the lived realities of communities and ecosystems.

Importantly, Convivial Conservation is presented as a loose set of principles designed for participatory co-creation rather than a rigid, one-size-fits-all plan. It is part of a broader collective effort that invites contributions from various stakeholders.

 

Conclusion: Revolution!

In short, "The Conservation Revolution" is a summons to revolution.

The authors remind us that the term "radical" is derived from the Latin words 'radix' or 'radic,' meaning 'roots.' In this sense, being radical means going to the root of the issue, something that current capitalist conservation strategies fail to do despite their seemingly extreme proposals.

Convivial conservation is presented as an act of "alternative realism," a paradigm that imagines conservation outside the constraints of capitalist logic. It's a vision that dares to dream of a different world, one where conservation is not commodified but is instead integrated into the fabric of our social and economic systems.

The Urgency of the 'Trump Moment'

The authors argue that the election of Donald Trump has made it even more dangerous not to challenge the capitalist drivers behind biodiversity destruction. This "Trump moment" exposes the refusal of mainstream conservation to support the radical changes that are desperately needed.

Nevertheless, the choices are pretty clear: redistribute control over resources and transition to an equitable, post-growth economy. These are not options but necessities if we are to address the root causes of biodiversity loss and climate change.

Critical scholars also have an important role to play. They must stake out clear positions and ally themselves with broader movements for just change. Intellectual critique must be accompanied by active participation in shaping alternatives, rather than just pursuing ivory tower academic work and shying away from the realities.

 

My take

This has been a tight read with a clear eye on pointing a way out of the current stalemates in conservation discourse. While I am largely enthused, I do feel that nature-culture integration requires a broad educational thrust that does not fantasise about nature, but acknowledges the sheer difference between species, and why the landscape will be difficult to integrate.

It will require understanding and respect, and solving numerous problems. As any farmer will tell you, predators and livestock - let alone humans - do not mingle well. Yet in this integrated landscape of biodiversity we will need apex predators, and every kind of fauna and flora, to realise Büscher and Fletcher's inspiring vision.