ABSTRACT
Etymologically, environment comes from the word environs, in its turn coming from the French words en (‘in’) and virer (‘to turn’). In its traditional, non-autopoietic understanding, environment implies a circularity around a presence, an outside surrounding an inside, a whirling indifference around a stable pivot.1 The difference between the inside and the outside of the turn is located in the fact that the inside is not turning: it is only the dervish-like outside that surrounds like a comfortable blanket the static inside. There are several problems with this formulation. Perhaps the most obvious is the assumption of a centralised geography, one that understands the observer, the utterer, the actor (in other words, the spatiotemporal parameters of locating the mode of locating) as the centre of the environment. The thematisation of the surroundings by the one who has the linguistic ability to express difference is reminiscent of Galileo’s trial, where the earth had to be torn out of the centre of the universe, leaving an unbearable absence for the religious system of the era.2 In Galileo’s mind, the static centre was replaced by a movement: eppur si muove! Yet it moves! For a brief moment, the turning has rolled over and flooded the inside, making the latter collapse under its own gravitas. But even out of the ruins, a local universe was established in its proper syntax of centre and surroundings: thus, ‘our’ anthropomorphic planets and ‘our’ sun. Order restored and stability reestablished, albeit in a celestial body nearby. And with this example in mind, one looks for the centre. The other problem revealed in the etymology of the word environment is
the lack of connection between movement and stability. This is usually associated with a certain causality, where movement is understood as the precondition of stability. To put it differently, the turn is needed in order for
1 Originally, the word ‘environmentalism’ was meant to contribute to the nature v. nurture debate. See https://www.etymonline.com.
