Working Landscapes

From the local to the global scale, the world is rapidly changing in non-linear ways that are only partly predictable and knowable. Currently, human decision making and ingenuity in response to change focuses on mitigating the drivers and effects of change and adapting to those changes. However, the Anthropocene poses unique challenges, and there are instances where maintaining the current system is no longer possible and transformation becomes necessary. The process of intentionally transforming a social-ecological system (SES) to a more desirable, novel, self-organizing dynamic state, is risky and unpredictable. Transformation is predicated on transformative capacity, that is the potential for a SES to be intentionally shifted to a new, self-organizing, more desirable state of the system. Identifying transformative capacity can help to influence the range of possibilities of future desired SES configurations, navigate uncertainty, and potentially reduce the element of unforeseen, negative surprise. Despite its importance, transformative capacity remains a nebulous concept, which limits the ability to imagine and actualize change. Here, we define transformative capacity as it specifically relates to SESs. As part of this definition, we highlight three core attributes of transformative capacity-memory, diversity, and novelty-and provide examples of their working dynamics. We then discuss the complexity of these attributes in terms of their behavior, cross-scale interactions, and importantly, their relationship to risk and power. Although transformative capacity is not prescriptive, defining this term and its core attributes is an important step in operationalizing transformative capacity, to steward SESs toward desirable futures.

This article proposes reevaluating the methods for consulting archives to write landscape histories. Archives hold immense amounts of human and non-human data, but approaching them purely to extract information causes the historian to miss past networks of affinity. By using a field method, one grounded in an ethic of care and focused on maintaining the ecologies of the past, researchers can identify important actors and events among their archival traces and write landscape histories that animate social, political, and biological processes and struggles important to that landscape and beyond its borders. Using important debates in the humanities around archival inclusion and composition, avenues of interpretation, and the pleasures and frustrations of working with incomplete information, I argue that landscape is a particularly insightful and inclusive way to organize historiography. The article concludes with four methodological episodes, each highlighting a different dimension of landscape history as a practice of radical empathy and affirmative maintenance.