Affect Matthew Sebmeider-Mayerson We must internalize the externalities. By this I mean not that we most reform neoliberal ‘capitalism so that global markets account for pesky “externalities” lke » functional bio- sphere bu chat we must internalize and embody the consequences of our heretofore disas- traus ENERGY choices, Not a theater or exercise but asa step toward action. Reading Elizabeth Kolberrs (2014) recent book on mass extinetions I was reminded ‘hae upon the detonation of the first atomic bomb in New Mesico in 1995, J. Robert ‘Oppenheimer claimed that line from the Bhagavad Gita sprung to mind: “Now Tam be- come death, the destroyer of worlds.” With only mild exaggeration, I would posit this sen- ‘iment as apt for our uniquely energetic age, the ANTHROPOCENE. In our energy choices (jes, choices) and daily ations, in our steady but nonetheless substantial contributions, ‘we are responsible forthe destruction of worlds big and small, near an fr, human and ‘nonhuman, existing and sill to come. This i a fact. For most of us, however —for rea. sons that sociologists, social psychologists, and nonfiction authors have documented for ‘over a decade now—this fact enters our minds and bodies only fleesingly: the newspaper headline on climate change or ecosystem collapse that elicits a sinking sadness, a muscular ‘contraction that is quickly but only temporarily relieved by turning to the sports ar Sunday. style section. As environmental humanists have begun to explore (eg, LeMenager 2014), this awareness is not merely intellectual but corporeal, lodged in our nerves and tendons, and it presents us with two options: to turn away orto act. ‘This is, then, «call forthe development or cultivation of what might be termed an Anthropacene affect, “affect” referring (as Gregory Scigworth and Melissa Gregg put Afiet 39 it) to those “visceral forces beneath, alongside, or generally other than conscious know ing vital forces insisting beyond emosion—that can serve to drive us toward movement” Goto, 0, “To this end, we can draw lessons from the past. For most of history and all of prehis- tory; human beings had an intimate awareness of conneetions to the world around them that did not require lessons in energy consumption or ecology but was necessary for daily lite. Until the eighteenth or nineteenth century (depending on geographical location and clas), itwasalmostimpossible for people to he unaware ofthe resources and energy (mea sured in human and aNMAL. work) chat went into the manufiesare of all the artifacts they me into contact with, be they ine arrowheads, animal-hide clothing, oF toothbrushes. ‘With the explosion of trade from distant regions and the harnessing of ancient sunlight in the form of fossil fuels, such awareness has become distant, theoretical. By the twentieth ‘century, living within an ecology of cheap oil, Americans citizens of industrialized nations, and, ineveasingly, elites and others around the world have been able clive aif energy and resources imply did not matter. This too shall pas, for hetter or worse. ‘We can also draw lessons from the present. In my work (2015) on the subeuleare and polities of American hard-core peak il believers in the mid- to late 20008, I show how they developed something resembling an Anthropocene affect. They based ther ie de- cisions on the threats of oil deplecion and climate change and adopted a dissident ideol- ‘ogy in which daily practices constructed an alternative affective landscape: driving more slowly refusing to fly, eeroiting their homes, ete, ‘They formed an insurgent emotional habitus, which, as Deborah Gould writes, “contains an emexional pedagogy, a template for ‘what and how to feel, in part by conferring on some feelings and modes of expression an sxiomati, natural quality" (2012, 97). These (currently) “outlaw emotions,” to borrow a pphease from Alison Jaggar (1989), take root in particular social conditions. A number of ‘older “peakiss” frst developed these tendencies during the oil crises of the 19708, when Americans were encouraged to be cognizant of energy consumption, both as citizens and 25 consumers. Such a historical perspoctve is « useful reference for our anticipation of, urns developments; questions about the plausibility—or, indeed, the inevitability —of ature alectve shifis might be answered not only with quotes from Spinoza ("no one has yet determined what the hody ean do” [x950, 87) but also withthe work of historians of ‘emotion, who have shown tha affective dispositions are notnearly as natural timeless, and ‘universal as they seem. ‘Asa result of the copious work on erowd peychology and the influence of scholars such 2s Teresa Brennan (2003), we tend to think of the transmission of affect via face-to-face interactions, but it should go without saying that digital NETWORKS offer ample possibili- ‘ies for such exchange, In my book on the peak ol subculture, Tertique the metaphor of| ‘the crowd asa representation of the typical virtual experience, but the collective construc ‘ion of outlaw emotions goes a long way toward answering one of my unanswered ques- ‘ions: Why did so many peak oil believers in the mid-zoo0s radically alter thei lives in preparation forthe impending collapse, despite having never met another peak il believer 1. See the work of Peter Steams (1980), Barbara Roseawein (206) and Wiliam Red (2001).30 Ale in person (in “the real world")? One explanation would look tothe isolated, atonal in- dividual gathering information and making decisions, bua focus onthe spread of dissident affective networks, even across fiber-optic network cables, s perhaps a more compelling picture. How ean we lubricate the transmission of such an affect? We can aso draw lessons from possible furures. For example: in Paolo Bacigalpi’s twenty-third-century, post-petroleum, climate-chaos novel The Windup Girl, human be- ings have primarily returned to a somatic energy regime, once again dependent on hi ‘man musele, “che joules of men,” and geneticists have resurrected fifteen-foot Pleistocene proboscideans to wind "kink-springs” chat serve as energy storage wnits (2009, 8). Once ‘he seas have subjugated entire regions and wait patiently beyond the dikes ike invading armies, the environmental consequences of carbon consumption become palpable. When fone character comes upon a room of working computers, “the amount of power burn- ing through them makes” her “weak in the knees. She can almost se the acean rising in ‘response. Its a horrifying thing to stand beside” (ibid, 215). The fear and srembling of anthropogenic climate change inthis passage is not just imagined but embodied, which Bacigalupi emphasize by highlighting his characters physical proximity tothe machines, ‘These connections are reinforced by religious practices the Environment Ministry has its own shrines around Bangkok (one of the few extant megalopoliscs), for example, and ‘one ofthe most popular religious figures isa “biodiversity marty.” recalling the prayers ofthe eco-cult Godl’s Gardeners in Margaret Arwood!'s MaddAddam trilogy. This radical shif in awareness of energy and environment —as this passage shows, an understanding ‘thats affective and not merely intellectual, corporeal a well a rational —could certainly bbe seen asa harbinger of things co come, and peshaps works of rcTION such as Tbe Wndup Girl can even encourage such connections. How solid the present feels—its political orders, its infrastructures its ideologies, but 0 t00 its affective predispositions. IF we are to avoid the worst of the dystopc Forecasts sugested by climate scientists, disaster movies, and eli-i novels alike, change will begin— has begun?—not in the voting booth (policy) or the market (consumption) but in our bod- ics, our selves, ‘The last ten years of environmental political inaction have shown that the information deficit model is Rawed: few people will ake proportionate action until they {fee the consequences of their (our, my, your) choices. The economists are right, for once ‘we must internalize the externalities. Let's begin that work. See also: ABORIGINAL, EMBODDAENT, MEDI, Donald Pease The discovery of oil did not create American capitalist society, hue the form of eapialism responsible for the United States’ rite to global dominance can trace its origins to the ay in 1859 that Colonel Edwin Drake struck rock oil near Titusville, Pennsylvania. The “American way oflife” would be unimaginable without an oil economy marked by surplus production, militarism, 4uTOMORIITY, unregulated markets, and mass consumption. (Ol capitalism shaped significant turns in US national history President Moneoe imag ined the Americas as a national protectorate, but Big Oil installed the transportation, commercial, military, and geopolitical networks that guaranteed US seigniorage over the hemisphere. Following its discovery in California, Oklahoma, and "TEX in the 1890s, ol facilitated the transportation NETWORKS interconnecting the West and East Coasts. The cil economy underwrote the United States’ spectacular military and economic growth ‘throughout the “American century.” An exceptional relationship tool supplied power for the key weapons systems-—warships, bombers, submarines oi tankers, aircraft carriers, ‘tanks, explosives, and a large partion of sea and land transport—that fortified vietories in the First and Second World Wars, After World War I, the United States structured its global hegemony on a complex of riltary and commercial processes that regulated the uneven production and distribution ‘of global oil, Five of the seven oil conglomerstes that dominated the international ol in- dustry from the 19208 tothe sg7os were American companies (Sampson 1975)- By 1940, ‘the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of world ol production. During theFueling Culture 101 Words for Energy and Environment Imre Szeman, Jennifer Wenzel, and Patricia Yaeger Editors