Colorado State University’s College of Liberal Arts hosted Anna L. Tsing, a professor of anthropology at the University of California, Santa Cruz Oct. 30. Tsing detailed her research on how people and the environments around them continuously shape one another, creating new and unexpected ecological and human-made forms.
The introduction was given by Sushmita Chatterjee, a professor and the chair of the department of race, gender and ethnic studies at CSU.
“Dr. Tsing’s contributions to the study of climate change and the Anthropocene, environmental humanities, sciences (and) methods for environmental analysis has opened new polyphonic worlds of interspecies habitations,” Chatterjee said. “How do we welcome a scholar whose vibrant interdisciplinarity has opened new vistas for knowing the world?”
Tsing described “forms” as the changing ways that humans and the natural world learn to live alongside one another and create meaning.
“I’ll show you how nonliving things might become protagonists of the kinds of stories environmental humanists tell through form,” Tsing said. “I’ll argue that without attention to form, we’re constantly surprised by the terrified, unexpected antics of the things we build, that is, the physical infrastructure that floats off into the sea that burns up or otherwise defies us.”
Tsing gave the example of a river system in Sorong, Indonesia, arguing that mining, flooding and changes to the river’s overall structure have disrupted the river flow.
“I am not trying to convince you that rivers are alive in a biological sense,” Tsing said. “I am trying to convince you that rivers are lively, even on a human time scale. To kill the river might mean to stop it from doing its work as (a) form: moving water and sediment.”
Tsing explained how the river’s ecology has broken down as a result of sand mining, channelization and dredging, eroding the long-standing history of the river and its place in the community.
“It’s as if the work process itself wanted to destroy the river, which represented the old ecology of the Indigenous clans,” Tsing said. “Infrastructural work, not human design, killed the river. The new channel belongs to the infrastructural regime. It’s a creature of hubris and full of chaos and floods.”
As a result, Tsing said that human infrastructure needs to be built responsibly, with equal consideration for human needs and the potential impact on the current ecology.
“The thing about infrastructure — I am not against building any kind of infrastructure, but I think if you’re going to do it, you have to do it well, and you have to maintain it,” Tsing said.
During Q&A, one audience member asked how people can take these lessons to engineers designing infrastructure. Tsing explained the importance of a diversity of perspectives.
“When we plan, they exclude all biotic elements, so that’s why roots are such a problem often in the building of infrastructure, because they’re never in the planning process,” Tsing said. “I think there are incredible opportunities for discussions between engineers and this kind of approach that looks at the consequences of building in particular ways.”
After the lecture, many students and faculty stayed behind to continue the conversation. One group of classmates from different majors reflected together, each drawing on perspectives from their different fields of study.
“Multispecies ethnography and Indigenous archaeology have a lot of overlap with them in that they’re giving nonhuman objects, whether that be an actual object or animals, agency,” said Theo Abele, a junior studying archaeology.
Another student spoke about the ethical considerations the lecture raised, leading him to question the responsibility people have to infrastructure.
“We were talking about responsibilities and relations that we have with nonhuman or nonliving beings and infrastructure, and what we as creators of this infrastructure then owe the things that we have created,” said Jaxen Maynor, a junior studying restoration ecology and ethnic studies.
Students also spoke about the broader implications of the lecture, highlighting the history of human-made environments and the power dynamics embedded in our societies.
“I was mostly thinking about the kind of interpersonal dynamics — specifically within settler colonialism — of deciding what is considered living and what is not living, and the kinds of respect or disrespect that are expressed through infrastructure and the prioritizing of human life,” said Zinnia Crowley, a first-year student studying social work.
Faculty in attendance were equally as engaged with the lecture as students, who were asking several questions in relation to their departments. Lindsey Schneider, an associate professor in the ethnic studies department, expressed how excited she was to see everyone’s engagement.
“I just love that my students are leaving with questions; like that to me is the sign of a good time,” Schneider said. “That students are coming up to me afterwards asking, ‘What did you think about this?’ That means that it was thought-provoking.”
Reach Claire VanDeventer at news@collegian.com or on social media @RMCollegian.
