Confronting the Materiality of Death in the Anthropocene
Apocalyptic predictions through history have shifted from foreseeing a looming crisis ahead to
recognising extinction as one of the defining features of a time in which humans presently
dwell- the proposed Anthropocene epoch. Utilising ‘imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the
contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion’ and ‘climate change’ (countdown to zero), the
Doomsday Clock conveys the severity of threats facing humanity and the planet- currently set
at one hundred seconds to midnight, we are closer to ‘doomsday today than during the Cold
War.’1 However, whilst death was actively and practically brought to the fore of public
consciousness during the Cold War, for example public information series Protect and Survive
instructed civilians on how to handle a dead body during nuclear fallout, there is a
corresponding lack of discussion now.2 Contemporary avoidance of the materiality of death
has contributed to the perception of the current environmental crisis as a ‘feature of normality,
not an imminent, radical rupture of it.’3 This essay argues confronting the materiality of death
is crucial to not only ground an understanding of the gravity of the Anthropocene concept, but
it can simultaneously create a foundation from which to enact positive transformative action at
this critical turning point. It will argue this by considering the following three interrelated
concepts that confront the vulnerability of humans as we are increasingly bound more tightly
to the Earth, even beyond death. Firstly, the display of the materiality of death within museums
to understandings of the Anthropocene concept. Secondly, the already observable
consequences of anticipated and actualised material death, of non-human animals and more-
than-human environments, in relation to the process of decomposition and ecological grief.
1
‘It is 100 Seconds to Midnight: 2020 Doomsday Clock Statement,’ Science and Security Board Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientist, ed. John Mecklin, p.3. https://thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2020-Doomsday-
Clock-statement.pdf [accessed 4 March 2020].
2
‘Protect and Survive,’ History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, (1980), p.24.
http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/110193 [accessed 21 February 2020].
3
Frederick Buell. From Apocalypse to Way of Life: Environmental Crisis in the American Century (New York;
London: Routledge, 2004), p.177.
1
, And subsequently, thirdly, how this has affected humans grappling with their own mortality,
considering the recent rise in popularity of both ‘green burial’ and cryonic preservation in the
funeral industry. Although focusing on exploring materiality as just one manifestation of death,
this is particularly valuable in being able to make tangible and pin-down the still in flux
Anthropocene concept. Therefore, considering these two concepts is intended to provide a
starting point, or even a point of contrast, for further research contributing to the emerging
Anthropocene discourse.
It was only in the year 2000 that air chemist Paul Crutzen and ecologist/marine biologist
Eugene Stoermer proposed for the first time in academia the ‘Anthropocene’. They argued
humans are now a significant force in the Earth System, the environmental impact of our
activities such as ‘the continued plundering of Earth’s resources’ are so profound, that we are
in a new geological era that could be called the ‘Anthropocene’.4 Defining the Anthropocene
as a rupture in geological history engaged stratigraphers and their epistemic culture of reliance
on ‘narrow but stringent types of evidence to delimit geological intervals.’5 Consequently, the
Anthropocene has yet to be formally validated by the physical placement of a Global
Stratigraphy Section and Point (or ‘golden spike’) in the geological record to delimit a new
interval. The placement of a spike is a powerful first step in bringing the Anthropocene into
being, however the absence of geological validation has simply delayed nailing the golden
spike in the coffin of considering the very real, material consequences of this new epoch.
Similarly, when the Anthropocene concept was subsequently engaged with more widely across
4
Paul Crutzen., and Eugene Stoermer. ‘The Anthropocene,’ Global Change Newsletter, 41(IGBP, 2000), p.18.
http://www.igbp.net/download/18.316f18321323470177580001401/1376383088452/NL41.pdf [accessed 17
February 2020].
5
Clive Hamilton., and Christophe Bonneuil., and François Gemenne. ‘Thinking the Anthropocene,’ The
Anthropocene and the Global Environmental Crisis: Rethinking Modernity in a New Epoch, ed. Clive Hamilton,
Christophe Bonneuil, François Gemenne (London; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015), p.2.
2
