The Intersection between Car Culture and Anthropocene: The SUV

The car can be considered one of the greatest symbols of Anthropocene, and in particular of The Great Acceleration (the post-1950 acceleration). Steffen et al. (2011) mention the post-war explosion in mobility greatly influenced by the car diffusion around the world. The term “Autocene” can be found in “Geologic Names of North America” by Druid Wilson. This term does not have a fixed meaning or a wide range of ways of conceptualising it. However, the existence of term “Autocene” shows the importance of this artefact for geological studies. According to Rollins (2006), the car is one of the key tools that could be employed to analyse the dialogue between nature and culture. According to Sullivan (2014), the Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) is an important Athropocene artifact. Sport Utilities Vehicles cannot be considered environmentally friendly vehicles (Rollins, 2006). However, they are becoming increasingly popular (Hultman, 2013). Consequently, it is important to analyse this contradictory tendency in the context of contemporary environmental awareness.

A deep historical contextualization can bring productive insights. By analyzing the evolution of the means of transport, we are able to create a more complete picture. Rollins (2006) makes a clear distinction between modernist society and postmodernist society. The modernist society established a boundary between nature and humans. On the other hand, the postmodernist society didn’t establish such an evident boundary.
Rollins (2006) identifies relevant historical marks in the development of the car culture: (1) the railroad era and the beginning of touristic consumption – the mid-nineteenth century; (2) the favourisation of automobiles over railroads – the early twentieth century; (3) the impact of the car on the modernist culture of the 1930s, 1940s ,1950s and 1960s; (4) the 1970s – the pivotal decade; (5) the 1980s – the rise of postmodernism and the post-modernist notion of the car. For the author, the SUV is a quintessentially postmodern vehicle.

According to Spangenberg (2014), the 1950s can be considered an important historical mark. The 1950s is the decade in which the International Era emerged. This era is characterized by the first time mass access to new telecommunications, car and air transports. The Great Acceleration began in the 1950s. It was a period of unprecedent rate of economic growth and change of international trade rules. The increasing growth of economy was accompanied by serious environmental problems.
Rollins (2006) highlights roads and the suburban development in the 1950s and 1960s as an important factor. Around 1970s the suburban population of the US exceeded the urban population. As a consequence, there has been an abrupt increase in the percentage of motor vehicles.

According to Rollins (2006) the popularity of the SUV grew enormously during the late 1980s and 1990s. This tendency was influenced by the significance of nature in the post-modernity. In the post-modern era, the boundary between nature and culture vanished. As a result, the SUV started to be perceived as a mean of transport that allows humans to have a true natural experience.

Haff (2014) examines the role of technology in Anthropocene. According to the author, the description of traffic in terms of individual cars is a crucial variable in the analysis of the interaction humans-technology. Rollins (2006) highlights that the SUVs are very big and heavy, additionally the SUVs consume much fuel. The author suggests that SUVs raise serious ethical concerns because the SUVs produce unnecessarily high emissions (CO2 emissions is one of the biggest challenges). Automobile production can be regarded as a key economic activity. In many cases, it is also a relevant economic indicator (Dalby, 2007). The global number of new motor vehicles per year is an important analysis unit used in many types of research models. Steffen et al. (2015) also use this important variable in their research on Anthropocene. An important concern pointed by Steffen et al. (2015) is the rise in production of motor vehicles motivated by the growing middle classes in the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). The consecutive grow of CO2 emission is an important aspect to consider.

According to Rollins (2006), cars have the potential to make our lives easier, richer and more exciting. At the same time, authors such Skillington (2015) highlight the negative impact of CO2 emissions. According to Spangenberg (2014) the growing car dependency is big concern for all of us. The author argues that the motor vehicles not only increase the energy demand, but also increase the public spending on road infrastructure. Rollins (2006) highlights the tremendous impact of motor vehicles ecosystems that is accompanied by a higher demand of transport infrastructures.

According to Skillington (2015), the motor vehicles must be analysed in relation to the complex infrastructures (roads, tunnels, bridges, etc.), complex production and maintenance systems. There are certain infrastructural conditions that stimulate car dependency. Illustrative examples could be: unicentric infrastructural designs or the design of out-of-town. Many complex infrastructures (such as tunnels or bridges) drastically changed the geological landscape. It is important to emphasize that our car dependence dictates many of these consequences.

The term “Autocene” could be explained by our extreme car dependency. Lekan (2014) characterizes the car as crucial aspect of consumer modernity. The car is an artifact and a consumer product. An important issue accentuated by Skillington (2015) is the car dependency. Obviously, there are practical and pragmatic conditions that could explain this phenomenon. However, the author refers the existence of specific cultural norms and patterns that sustains the car dependency (for instance car oriented shopping).

Dalby (2007) refers the term “car culture”. This term has a major significance because the car is more than a technical innovation or a mode of transportation. It is an integral part of our culture. According to Lubar (2004), the car is an important artefact. The cars are a very common artefact in Museums of History. The author points attention to the fact that the museums tend to romanticize the car culture and the image of the car; instead of examining the way in which the cars affect the environment. Cohen (2006) suggests that car culture is becoming a globalized phenomenon. This new phenomenon raises environmental concerns because of its growing popularity in large rapidly industrializing countries (for example Mexico).

Rollins (2006) refers the terms “SUV culture” and “culture of automibility”. Our lives would be extremely difficult without motor vehicles. However, there are more environmentally friendly alternatives for SUVs. Rollins (2006) questions the cause of popularity of SUVs. The SUVs illustrate an important theme: the conflict between the urge for consumption and the environmental problems.

Laan (2001) expresses a very interesting point of view: “Although we think we are able to dictate the structures of our technological environment, it is rather the technological environment that dictates the structures of our lives” (p. 353). Additionally, the relationship between the technical environment and culture, also play a crucial role. Rollins (2006) refers the contradictory message associated with the SUVs: the SUVs are not environmentally friendly vehicles, at the same time, the advertising surrounding the SUVs promise to bring the potential buyer closer to nature. According to Rollins (2006), the marketing campaigns are extremely effective because they use the expression “natural life-style” as one of the key-issues. These campaigns also stress the ability that the SUVs posses to “conquer the nature”. However, the SUVs are associated not only with pragmatic purposes. There also luxury SUVs that can be regarded as a manifestation of the contemporary car culture and as a manifestation of the consumerist culture.

According to Hultman (2013) there is a conceptual connection between the SUVs and the culture of masculinity. In this context, the study of collective representation may reveal many crucial aspects. Rollins (2006) argues that the SUVs allow people the illusion that they are self-determining, free agents of their lives.

Culture and nature are extremely interconnected. We cannot separate them (Lowenthal, 2005). If we analyse the car culture and the SUVs within the context of the Anthropocene as an epoch of human effect on the globe, we are be able to observe historical continuities and discontinuities, paradoxes, cultural and social patterns. Post-modernity brought with it many potential challenges. According to Skillington (2015), car dependency is one of the biggest challenges in the Anthropocene. However, this dependency is justified not only by pragmatic reasons.

However, this dependency is justified not only by pragmatic reasons. Scholars such as Dalby (2003) use the term “car culture”. The car culture raises serious ethical problems (Rollins, 2006); and in many cases, the car culture is motivated mostly by cultural norms (Skillington, 2015). The culture of masculinity (Hultman, 2013) and the culture of individualism (Dalby, 2003) are other important issues to be considered. According to Rollins (2006), the popularity of SUVs can be explained by the promise that the SUV can provide a direct connection with the environment. The cultural material that surrounds the SUV has a powerful influence on the buyer’s decision. In order to meet challenges of the Anthropocene, we must study the historical and cultural background of humanity’s existence. This will allows us to find effective long-term solutions.

References:

Cohen, M., 2006. A social problems framework for the critical appraisal of automobility and sustainable systems innovation. Mobilities, 1(1), pp.23-38.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17450100500489106

Dalby, S., 2003. Geopolitical identities: arctic ecology and global consumption. Geopolitics, 8(1), pp.181-202.
https://doi.org/10.1080/714001009

Dalby, S., 2007. Anthropocene geopolitics: Globalisation, empire, environment and critique. Geography Compass, 1(1), pp.103-118.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00007.x

Haff, P., 2014. Humans and technology in the Anthropocene: Six rules. The Anthropocene Review, 1(2), pp.126-136.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614530575

Hultman, M., 2013. The making of an environmental Hero: A history of ecomodern masculinity, fuel cells and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Environmental Humanities, 2(1), pp.79-99.
https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3610360

Laan, J. M. van der., 2001. Plastic Words: Words Without Meaning. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 21(5), 349–353.
https://doi.org/10.1177/027046760102100503

Lekan, T., 2014. Fractal Eaarth: Visualizing the Global Environment in the Anthropocene. Environmental Humanities, 5(1), 171–201. Retrieved from http://environmentalhumanities.org/arch/vol5/5.10.pdf

Lowenthal, D., 2005. Natural and cultural heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 11(1), pp.81-92.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250500037088

Lubar, S., 2004. The making of “America on the Move” at the National Museum of American History. Curator: The Museum Journal, 47(1), pp.19-51.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2004.tb00364.x

Rollins, W., 2006. reflections on a spare tire: SUVs AND POSTMODERN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSCIOUSNESS. Environmental History, 11(4), pp.684-723.
https://doi.org/10.1093/envhis/11.4.684

Skillington, T., 2015. Theorizing the Anthropocene. European Journal of Social Theory, 18(3), 229-235.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431015579960

Spangenberg, J., 2014. China in the anthropocene: Culprit, victim or last best hope for a global ecological civilisation?. BioRisk, 9, pp.1.-37.
https://doi.org/10.3897/biorisk.9.6105

Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., & Ludwig, C. (2015). The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2(1), 81-98.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614564785

Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P., & McNeill, J.,2011. The Anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 369(1938), 842–867. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0327

Sullivan, H., 2014. Dirty Traffic and the Dark Pastoral in the Anthropocene: Narrating Refugees, Deforestation, Radiation, and Melting Ice. Literatur für Leser, 14(2), pp.83-97. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1102&context=mll_faculty