Anthropocentrism and Anthropomorphism
In exploring Vibrant Materiality, Jane Bennett places human and non-human actants on a less vertical plane than is common, in order to highlight the distinctive capabilities and importance of non-human actants. Resistance to anthropocentrism (or the tendency to place greater importance and focus on the actions and effects of humans) is the main difference between the vital materialism that Bennett pursues, and the historical movement of materialism. By overemphasizing the agentic contributions of nonhuman forces, Bennett counters the narcissistic reflex of human language and thought. Humans tend to practice “demystification,” the idea of increasing of understanding by applying human characteristics and actants to a situation (in essence, anthropomorphizing them). The author tries to use this with caution and sparingly, because demystification presumes that at the heart of any event or process lies a human agency that has illicitly been projected onto things. By treating them as separate entities that instead act on each other and humans with equal autonomy, Bennett not only highlights their importance to us, but also as independent subjects. What she ultimately seeks to understand is if there are everyday tactics for cultivating an ability to discern the vitality of matter? One might be to allow oneself, as Charles Darwin did, to anthropomorphize, as it may prove valuable in refining a sensitivity to green materialism. Anthropomorphizing can work against Anthropocentrism, as a connection is made between person and thing.1