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).