Is Critical Naturalism Necessary?

Martine Prange, Ties van Gemert, Willem van der Deijl-Kloeg, Paolo Santori

Krisis 2023, 43 (1): 106-109.

Abstract

The prior issue of Krisis (42:1) published Critical Naturalism: A Manifesto, with the aim to

instigate a debate of the issues raised in this manifesto – the necessary re-thinking of the role

(and the concept) of nature in critical theory in relation to questions of ecology, health, and

inequality. Since Krisis considers itself a place for philosophical debates that take contempo-

rary struggles as starting point, it issued an open call and solicited responses to the manifesto.

This is one of the sixteen selected responses, which augment, specify, or question the assump-

tions and arguments of the manifesto.

Keywords

Critical Naturalism Manifesto, Nietzsche, Neoliberalism, Braidotti

DOI

https://doi.org/10.21827/krisis.43.1.40967

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC

Krisis 2023, 43 (1)

106

Is Critical Naturalism Necessary?

Martine Prange, Ties van Gemert, Willem van der Deijl-Kloeg, Paolo Santori

After a collective reading and discussion of the Critical Manifesto, members of the Tilburg

Research Group Philosophy of Humanity, Culture, and Ethics (PHC&E) and Tilburg Center

for Moral Philosophy, Epistemology and Philosophy of Science (TiLPS) decided to write the

present response, combining each member’s remarks and questions. We believe that the chal-

lenges addressed by the Manifesto are pertinent and urgent. We are sceptical, however, of the

ways in which the authors address the problems and of the version of “critical naturalism” they

propose. The following four points capture some of our reservations:

1. The question is, first, what the authors mean by “critical naturalism,” since “natural-

ism” is hardly defined; and, second, what critical naturalism has to offer or add to ex-

isting theories that have been concerned with similar issues. Think, for instance, of

Braidotti’s critical posthumanism (Braidotti 2013). Think also of Latour’s thought on

the Anthropocene and his concept of “Gaia” as an ethical alternative for “Earth” or

“nature” (Latour 2017); think perhaps even of the Romantic tradition running from

Humboldt to Nietzsche, which is marked by its claim for the unity of humanity and

nature (Nietzsche 1980). The authors of the manifesto overlook these, and other, tradi-

tions, and as a result invite us to reinvent the wheel. They seem to operate from an

awareness that Critical Theory currently offers little to the (philosophical and political)

climate debates, and that any serious social critique needs to. As they claim, the human-

nature relationship needs to be rethought because, they state, the social is embedded in

nature. Naturalism, in this context, seems to mean: “critical theory turning its focus to

nature,” which makes a very meagre concept. How does this concept strengthen or defy

existing concepts from the long traditions of naturalism in both continental and analytic

philosophy? What strikes us as odd in addition to this, is that they advocate a turn to

Hegel – the giant thinker of “spirit,” to address nature. Is Hegel really a greater thinker

of nature and the humanity-nature relationship than, say, Humboldt, Nietzsche, or

Latour? In sum, it is praiseworthy that the authors try to open up a way for scholars in

the Frankfurter tradition to rethink the humanity-nature relationship in light of the cur-

rent climate crisis. The question is, however, whether we are not better off with

Krisis 2023, 43 (1)

107

Nietzsche’s attempt at “naturalizing” humanity, Latour’s concept of Gaia, and

Braidotti’s post-critical humanism – which fruitfully combines an inter-relational eth-

ics, anti-speciesism, and capitalist critique – at least as long as the authors have no clear

definition of “nature” and “naturalism.”

2. Critique is a reflective gesture where thought turns towards itself and scrutinizes the

conditions and validity of its content (Kant 1929 [1787]). Naturalism, by contrast, as-

pires to remain faithful to the appearances and to introduce nothing exterior to the given

(Neurath 1973 [1921]; Quine 1969). How can we combine these two commitments?

This is no hint at a paradox, but an invitation to make this tension productive (Deleuze

and Guattari 1980). Perhaps one could even argue that intensifying this tension is the

very task of any critical naturalism. We wonder how the authors intend to come to

terms with this tension. Will they give up on critique as reflection and simply equate

critique with care? Will they answer by insisting that anyone who asks the question

remains a victim of a false, outdated dichotomy? Or might they be willing to rethink

the relation between reality and appearance (Brassier 2013)?

3. Is a critical naturalistic theory necessary? How can such a theory motivate us to

change? Isn’t it already obvious what needs to be done? We need to significantly cut

our emissions by swiftly shifting alternative energy resources (Broome 2012) and to

stop exploiting animals (Singer 1977; Regan 1983). In short, to take our duty of caring

for the planet seriously. We doubt whether critical naturalism has the theoretical re-

sources to contribute to solving the challenges involved in these practices. How can it

contribute to problems such as whether we should use geo-engineering to fight climate

change (e.g. Mittiga 2019), or whether we should start eating lab-grown meat (e.g.

Schaefer and Savulescu 2014)? If we know what to do but simply miss the motivation

for action, how can critical naturalism aid us in reforming and ameliorating our inter-

ests to live our lives as environmentally, ecologically, and animal-friendly as possible?

4. Can we speak about capitalism in a singular tense, identifying it with neoliberalism, as

the authors of the manifesto seem to do? There are good reasons to avoid this oversim-

plification. First, the geopolitical context shows that such major players as the USA are

not holding on anymore to the neoliberal dogma of the Washington Consensus,

Krisis 2023, 43 (1)

108

favouring protectionism and commercial wars over global liberalization and open fron-

tiers. Second, there is a lot of variety in capitalism. Take, as just one example, the

Italian entrepreneurial fabric. There we find ample family businesses, small-size enter-

prises, cooperatives and so on. It is a “spirit” and practice of capitalism very different

from the Anglo-American, neoliberal one, made of vertical corporations and anony-

mous markets (Bruni and Zamagni 2016). Reducing the plural economic realities to

one dominant standard under the label of “neoliberalism” risks overshadowing poten-

tially good practices. The same goes for economics. While there is a neoliberal main-

stream in research and teaching in business schools and economics faculties, there is a

growing field of economic research which challenges that. To list a few examples, think

of Raworth’s Doughnut Economics (Raworth 2017) as it is applied to cities, or Maz-

zucato’s view of The Entrepreneurial State (Mazzucato 2013), not to mention the Das-

gupta Review (Dasgupta 2021), funded by HM Treasury (curiously enough a neoliberal

institution), that advocates for a new understanding of nature in economics. All of this

calls for a change in the economic curricula, from the neoliberal focus on private goods

and rational interest toward common goods and care. By lumping together economics,

capitalism, and neoliberalism, and considering them simply as the enemy, the authors

of the Critical Naturalism Manifesto miss the opportunity to theorize how some forms

of capitalism and economic theories might actually become potential allies in the aus-

picated change.

References

Braidotti, Rosi. 2013. The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity.

Brassier, Ray. 2013. “That Which is Not: Philosophy as Entwinement of Truth and Negativity.” Stasis 1 (1) 174-

186.

Broome, John. 2012. Climate Matters: Ethics in a Warming World. New York: WW Norton & Company.

Bruni, Luigino, and Stefano Zamagni. 2016. Civil Economy: Another Idea of the Market. Newcastle-Upon-Tyne:

Agenda Publishing.

Dasgupta, Partha. 2021. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. Hm Treasury.

Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. 1980. Mille plateaux. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.

Kant, Immanuel. 1929 [1787]. Critique of Pure Reason. London: MacMillan.

Latour, Bruno. 2017. Facing Gaia: Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime. Cambridge: Polity.

Mazzucato, Marianna. 2013. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. Lon-

don: Anthem Press.

Mittiga, Ross. 2019. “What’s the Problem with Geo-Engineering?” Social Theory and Practice 45 (3), 471–99.

Neurath, Otto. 1973 [1921]. “Anti-Spengler.” In Empiricism and Sociology, edited by Marie Neurath and Robert

Krisis 2023, 43 (1)

109

S. Cohen, 158-214. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1980. Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Studienausgabe. Edited by G. Colli and M. Montinari.

Berlin: De Gruyter/ Munich: DTV.

Quine, W.V.O. 1969. “Epistemology Naturalized.” In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Co-

lumbia University Press.

Raworth, Kate. 2017. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. Vermont:

Chelsea Green Publishing.

Regan, Tom. 1983. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Schaefer, G. Owen, and Julian Savulescu. 2014. “The Ethics of Producing in Vitro Meat.” Journal of Applied

Philosophy 31 (2): 188–202.

Singer, Peter. 1977. Animal Liberation. New York: Avon Books.

Biography

Martine Prange is Full Professor of Humanity, Culture and Society. Her research focuses on the History of

Modernity, Continental Philosophy, contemporary questions of free speech, critique, and media as well of 'public

listening' and 'auditive democracy' (the philosophy and art of listening, attention, and silence). She also teaches

philosophical anthropology, posthumanism, and the Anthropocene.

Ties van Gemert is a PhD-student at the Department of Philosophy of Tilburg University. His research interests

are in epistemology, philosophy of science, and history of psychology.

Willem van der Deijl is assistant professor of ethics at the Tilburg Philosophy Department. His research is

focused on wellbeing, meaningfulness, and questions of value more generally.

Paolo Santori defines himself as a philosopher at the crossroads between economic thought and theology. Cur-

rently, he is Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy of the Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital

Sciences (Tilburg University). He obtained (2022) the Italian National Scientific Habilitation as Associate Pro-

fessor in History of Econonomic Thought.