2. New materialism
Knowing we need to develop better, more harmonious river-human relationships moving into the future, an important question arises; Are there potential approaches by which humans can develop harmonious coexistent relationships with riverine landscapes and associated ecosystems? And if so, how do we go about forming harmonious coexistent relationships with river systems? New materialism thinking, broadly interpreted, may provide some guidance.
New materialism is a shift from notions of the centrality of human agency shaping the world towards a relational interpretation of human-nonhuman explanations of landscape and environmental processes including river systems (Bennett, 2004; 2010; Benson, 2019; Fowler & Harris, 2015; Knappett & Malafouris, 2008). This recognises that human agency is but one aspect of a complex interconnected human-nonhuman relational system, not the dominant aspect (Bennett, 2010; Benson, 2019; Ward et al., 2002). This approach emphasises the interconnected and interdependent relations between humans and nonhumans thus de-centring the human and challenging the notion that humans and nature are separate (Bennett, 2010; O’Donovan, 2019). It further provides opportunities for the potency of nonhuman agency to be acknowledged within relational and complex human-nonhuman relationships and co-productive partnerships (Benson, 2019; Hertz et al., 2020; O’Donovan, 2019; Washick & Wingrove, 2015). A river’s water provides an appropriate example of such agential potency through its characteristics of fluidity, its ability to transform and circulate materials, and its connectivity biophysically and socially, as well as temporally. In this sense, water’s agency is also active in co-constituting interconnected human-nonhuman relationships as emphasised through hydrosocial relationships (Linton & Budds, 2014; Strang, 2014). Thus, de-centring humans as the dominant actor in nature provides opportunities to re-interpret and analyse more closely the role rivers play in human-river relationships, and the dynamics and changes of place and of human communities (Benson, 2019; Plumwood, 2009).
The ongoing demands for river systems to service ongoing human activities places mounting pressure on decision-makers to develop and build harmonious coexistent river-human relationships through developing robust understandings of the connectivity and agencies functioning within river systems (Bernhardt et al., 2006; Tundisi et al., 2015). There may even be an ethical principle associated with the arguments of new materialism in that humanity’s ontological embeddedness within and interconnectedness to and with the material world, including rivers systems, underpins a duty of care responsibility to form more harmonious coexistent river-human relations and co-productive partnerships (Hawkins, 2006; Washick & Wingrove, 2015). Yates et al. (2017) furthermore suggest that such ethical obligations are important considerations to recognise and acknowledge the influential agency and connectivity of river systems and water for human-nonhuman coexistence and sustainability. In this context, it will require humans to consider how their actions and practices impact on river systems and, how river systems themselves might respond in turn. As a human-nonhuman interconnected whole, nothing operates in isolation, consequently, impacts may be more broadly dispersed than first assumed (de Loë and Patterson, 2017). Thus, river systems need to be acknowledged as being full of agency and continually undergoing change as internal and external conditions evolve (Bennett, 2010; Plumwood, 2009) emphasising co-productive agency occurs through interconnected human-nonhuman relationships.
The connectivity and interconnected agencies of place and humans are dynamic and ever-changing, (re)shaping ongoing river-human relationships and human-nonhuman relationships more broadly. Thus, there is no one singular river-human relationship (Stark, 2017). River-human relationships are dynamic, ever-changing, ever-developing, ever-evolving in complexity [interconnectedness] (Jones, 2009). A web of interconnected relationships has been built and re-built repeatedly throughout history as river agency and human actions have evolved and developed and responded to change. Floodplains, for example, can be described as a water-landscape fusion containing a web of interconnected human and nonhuman relationships (Allen, 2011). In this context, river systems as a setting for human and nonhuman co-agency and co-functionality facilitate the emergence of relational ontologies within a cycle and re-configurations of meanings and values for the river, water, and the floodplain (Friess & Jazeel, 2017; Yates et al., 2017). Furthermore, a river landscape may be considered as an amalgam of a myriad of interconnected and dynamic biophysical, cultural, and social contexts as one spatially bounded whole (Friess & Jazeel, 2017) together (re)shaping the dynamics and meaning of landscape and duly river systems. Humans, in this context, are not the sole stakeholders or source of agency in or of landscapes, including river landscapes and environments (Allen, 2011; Friess & Jazeel, 2017). This further underpins the importance of new materialism in acknowledging rivers as active stakeholders within human-river relationships and co-productive partnerships (Coole, 2013).
It needs to be noted that by not confronting the complexity and connectivity of river systems, and its agency in human affairs would be an act of hiding from confronting its influence on the social and, importantly, humans’ relationships with rivers (Bingham & Hinchliffe, 2008). As Bingham and Hinchliffe (2008, p. 85) make clear, “[w]hilst many natures might work happily alongside a collective without grumble or objection, there will always be those that will demand to be taken into account, things that simply refuse to be ignored … The missed out or the not quite bargained for that by upsetting the status quo (whether in the form of scientific assumptions or political institutions) generate events which require collective examination.” Historical and current river relationships with humans and society exemplify Bingham and Hinchliffe’s perspectives through, for example, extreme flooding (Parsons, 2019). Thus, to avoid an ugly divorce by forming more harmonious coexistent relationships with river systems “… humans [will need to] cultivate and negotiate relations with the material world” (Neimanis et al., 2015, p. 81) requiring an inclusion of perspectives from nonhuman entities such as rivers, not just human-based perspectives (Neimanis et al., 2015). This line of thinking is further emphasised by Shotter (2014) when arguing that the consideration of the connectivity and agency of river systems needs to attend to “our being [is] within a dynamic reality in ceaseless, unfolding movement, in which nothing is separate from anything else …” (p. 307, original italics). Thus, the realisation needs to be accepted that humans cannot force river systems to conform to imposed socially, economically, and policy-based management systems (Shotter, 2014). This further emphasises that humans are not above or superior or separate from or outside of river landscapes and the environment more broadly (Bender, 2002).
Broadly speaking, Bennett (2010) suggests that in coming to terms with human-nonhuman relationships, a more horizontal interpretation of human-nonhuman coexistence needs to be developed. As Bennett (2013, p. 151, original italics) argues, materiality “horizontalizes the relations between humans, biota, and abiota …” thereby emphasising the “connectedness of all things.” That is, a river landscape’s connectivity is related to the interconnected agencies of the atmosphere, biosphere (including humans), hydrosphere, and lithosphere at various scales (Gurnell et al. 2016; Tockner & Stanford, 2002; Ward et al., 2002). In this, there is no implied hierarchical structure constituted by individual human and other natures. In other words, no actor or agent has full command of other actors or agents or of the outcomes of the human-nonhuman interconnected river-human relationships and interactions (Bennett, 2010). This further emphasises that in developing harmonious coexistent relationships with rivers humans needs to recognise the interconnected connectivity and agencies driving river systems and, thus, influencing the landscape and human systems (Gurnell et al. 2016). Hence, is the importance of acknowledging rivers as stakeholders within any decisions concerning the development of harmonious coexistent river-human relationships.
Taking the lead from the above perspectives, re-interpreting Wantzen et al.’s (2016) river culture concept from a river system’s perspective as a “river’s” cultural dynamic constituted through the connectivity and agencies of landscape, ecosystems, and water, it is the river system that could be the guiding influence in developing harmonious and coexistent river-human relationships rather than imposed human cultural values or ideals. That is, the river system needs to be acknowledged as an active key agent from which human well-being is derived (Wantzen et al., 2016) albeit within the functioning carrying capacity or peak limits (Gleick & Palaniappan, 2010) of river systems to provide the ecological services, for example water, which support and enhance human well-being and community development (Linton & Budds, 2014; Strang, 2014; Tockner & Stanford, 2002). In this sense, river systems consist of and constitute life in the sense of it being an active interconnected agencies converting material into energy for growth and provides water for environmental and human use and benefit (Ingold, 2010; Karpouzoglou & Vij, 2017). Swainson et al. (2011, p. 16) identifies environmental water flows as “‘ecological water demand”’ which can be considered relative to human water demands. Importantly, therefore, given the environment and its ecological services underpin human and nonhuman life, ecological water demands require the same, if not more, consideration of its value than does human water demands attract. In other words, environmental flows should be considered as an element of the river system as a stakeholder embodied with agency within river-human harmonious coexistent relationships requiring reassessment of the decision regarding ongoing water allocations (Swainson et al., 2011).
Ingold (2010) argues that the immersion of something within the flows and metabolism of materials underpins the entity being alive. Within a river system through its connectivity and agencies whereby materials flow and are metabolised and used, establishes, and shapes its status as being alive and, thus, an active stakeholder. Similarly, Ryan (2022) applies the concept of hydropoetics to refer to rivers as alive or transformative and frames a river’s communicative perspective not through a “human-type voice” but through their agency as performative. This perspective is supported by Plumwood (2009) who argues that the agency of nature can be conceptualised as an “active voice”, in terms of being a means of communication and as an expression of purpose. As Everard and Powell (2002, p. 333) argue, “[t]he functioning of the ecosystem [as performance], and not merely human use of it, needs to be central to our thinking.”
Broadly speaking, performance, or performativity, focuses on the reproductive capacities and abilities and the relationship’s objects have to and with other objects (Lavau, 2011a). In regard to river systems, the river is enacted or emerges through connectivity and their agency within the various relationships with humans and their practices leading to rivers and humans co-producing the (re)shaping of landscape and human communities and practices including, for example, agriculture and river management (Lavau, 2011b). Thus, applying the concept of hydropoetics is, as Ryan (2022, p. 487, original italics) states, “to embrace hydrocentricism or, even, what might be calledrivercentricism … signifying a river-focused worldview as well as a physical identification with rivers as bodies in themselves.” From this perspective, rivers are key stakeholders in their own right and, thus, their perspectives need to be incorporated within the place-based decision-making process relative to use and management. It is from such inclusiveness of the river as an active stakeholder or as an influential autopoiesis agent (Ryan, 2022) that harmonious relationships can be built and developed towards management solutions which provide mutually beneficial outcomes. This further emphasises the importance of acknowledging rivers and humans coexist as and within interdependent material, social, and cultural agential systems influencing and shaping landscape and human communities (Zalewski, 2012).
Although each river’s connectivity may be broadly similar, the influences of multiple agencies throughout the interconnectedness of river system connectivity (re)shapes according to the dynamics and distinctiveness of local environments and landscapes. Forming harmonious river-human relationships which acknowledges the influence of river system agencies on human life and practices is better served through place-based thinking and approaches (Schönach, 2017). Accepting rivers as place-based stakeholders and agents develops from understanding the purposes of river systems is far more than the narrow instrumental valuing of rivers as mere sources of resources, for example water and floodplains for urbanisation, or navigational routes to transport goods and people (Schönach, 2017; Tockner & Stanford, 2002). In this place-based meanings and understandings of the agencies of local river systems become important for guiding decision-making and experimenting possible solutions for creating and building harmonious river-human relationships (Fox et al., 2017) in terms of understanding rivers as being “rivers-in-place” (Tadaki et al., 2014, p. 360).