Impact

Yvetta Zheng, March, 2025

When one entity encounters another, there is always an impact, whether foreseeable or imperceptible, on both parties. The idea of impact typically involves an interaction between at least two entities: one that exerts influence, the "actor" or "agent," and another that is affected by that influence, the "recipient" or "subject." In this sense, impact is inherently relational and sometimes reciprocal but cannot exist in isolation. It is a dynamic force that often takes on a life of its own. The scope, strength, and duration of an impact—who or what is affected, in what way, and for how long—can sometimes be measured, especially in short-term scenarios with clear endpoints. However, in most cases, impact resists measurement, manifesting as chain reactions, butterfly effects, or outcomes that take time to become observable. Thus, not all impacts are measurable; some are intangible, subjective, or too complex to quantify fully, reminding us that the true nature of impact often lies beyond what we can easily see or understand.

Impact between individuals is a complex, reciprocal process shaped by subjectivity and agency, with the dual potential to construct or destroy. It is not merely a one-way force but a dynamic interaction where both the giver and receiver influence each other, leading to integration, transformation, or resistance. When it comes to individuals, the impact one exerts upon another is sometimes easily susceptible, as one may consciously or subconsciously strive for change, be it through learning, mirroring, or even pretending. Individuals have varying levels of agency and resources, which shape how they respond to impact. Learning involves internalizing new ideas or behaviors, and when persistent, it can drive long-term transformation. Mirroring, by contrast, is more like a band-aid solution, a temporary fix that mimics change without addressing the root cause. Pretending, however, stems from a desperate need to change but a lack of resources or capacity, often leading to superficial or unsustainable outcomes. Nevertheless, a fine line separates these responses, and they can sometimes occur interchangeably and simultaneously. For instance, an individual might begin by mirroring a behavior, gradually internalize it through learning, yet still pretend in certain contexts because of limitations or insecurities.

The impact of witnessing and interacting with another individual, however, is subjective and depends on how one perceives oneself and the world around them. If impact is a force with both destructive and constructive potential, then how well an individual takes it depends on how they allow it in or defend against it. What is allowed to pierce through will inevitably integrate into, or change, what was already there. At the same time, as Newton’s law states, the individual who receives that impact will also exert a counter-impact, an opposing force, on the entity that first created it. For instance, when reading a book, listening to music, or experiencing an artwork, the receiver absorbs the story, music, or artwork through their own interpretation, integrating whatever they allow to pass through. This process can change their ideas, perceptions, or even parts of themselves they might not fully recognize. At the same time, because of their unique interpretation, the work is no longer solely the author’s creation, as it becomes a co-creation between both parties. What the author intended to express, and how they strived to convey it, can never be received exactly as intended, because every individual is a medium, constantly filtering, mediating, and reshaping the information they absorb to suit their own understanding and identity. Thus, on an individual level, impact is a dynamic, reciprocal process, shaped and shaping itself through the interplay of forces between individuals. As one absorbs, interprets, and responds to the world around us, one not only transforms themselves but also exerts a counter-impact, creating a continuous cycle of change.

When two collectives interact, their encounter is shaped by their shared and divergent characteristics, such as values, goals, and power structures. This interaction can lead to outcomes ranging from collaboration and mutual growth to conflict and resistance. At the community or small-group level, the impact shifts from individual experiences to socio-economic and cultural dimensions, creating a collective dynamic. This collective dynamic strengthens both resistance and acceptance of change, because it is rooted in shared identities and structures. When there is a group, a different dynamic emerges, one that is general enough to represent the characteristics of the group as a whole but never accurate enough to capture each individual within it fully; this is how the collective comes into existence, shaped by shared experiences and identities, yet always leaving room for the nuances of individuality. In Mudede's analysis of Djibril Diop Mambéty's Hyènes, the encounter between the African villagers and the global capitalist system is depicted through the villagers’ increasing reliance on money and material wealth. This reliance symbolizes how capitalism commodifies cultural and historical identities, reshaping them to fit economic structures. Mudede’s analysis highlights how this encounter forces the African historical narrative to be reframed through Western perspectives, distorting its original meaning and lineage. Mambéty’s film critiques this process, exposing the tension between cultural preservation and capitalist exploitation. This example shows how the encounter between two collectives—postcolonial societies and global capitalism—can drive socio-economic and cultural change, from adaptation and commodification to resistance and critique.

No matter how significant the impact is between collectives or among human beings, we, as a species, have collectively created far more severe and far-reaching impacts on the planet, impacts that extend even beyond our comprehension. Chakrabarty's The Planet: An Emergent Humanist Category challenges how globalization distorts history to fit capitalism, reducing historical developments into simplified narratives. His distinction between the "global," shaped by human actions and economic systems, and the "planetary," which operates on a much larger ecological scale, highlights the limits of human-centered historical frameworks. Planetary history resists being turned into a commodity, since human beings constitute only a tiny segment of the planet's history. The fact that human history and planetary history exist positions us as minute creatures within a broader universe and world we have yet to fathom, leaving economic struggles and capitalist agendas trivial and ridiculous. Without taking into account the planetary environment, time, and space, the “global" history is just a fragmented 2D demonstration of reality. In contrast, the planetary history elevates the narrative into a more grandiose, explicable, and objective scale.

This shift from global to planetary thinking aligns with the concept of the Anthropocene, where humans, despite their insignificance in planetary terms, have become a dominant force shaping Earth’s biogeophysical systems. Donna Haraway further explores this tension in Tentacular Thinking: Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Chthulucene, urging us to reconsider our relationship with the planet and envision new ways to coexist within its fragile ecosystems. In the context of the Anthropocene, impact is relational. As the primary actors, humans have impacted the Earth, the recipient, through activities such as industrialization, deforestation, and pollution. For example, industrialization has led to massive carbon emissions that drive climate change, altering weather patterns, sea levels, and ecosystems worldwide. Similarly, deforestation disrupts biodiversity and carbon cycles, while pollution contaminates air, water, and soil, affecting both human and non-human life. Even when considering humanity as a single entity, the impact remains relational because it involves humanity’s interaction with the environment, ecosystems, and geological systems. For instance, extracting fossil fuels not only powers human societies but also contributes to global warming, triggering feedback loops like melting ice caps and rising sea levels. These changes, in turn, impact human communities through extreme weather events, displacement, and resource scarcity. This relational dynamic underscores that humans are not separate from nature but deeply embedded within it, constantly shaping and being shaped by the planet’s processes.

In conclusion, impact is inherently relational and unpredictable, operating across interpersonal, social, and planetary levels. Between individuals, it is a dynamic interplay of influence, resistance, and transformation, shaped by subjectivity and agency. Collectives, in turn, interact through shared identities and power structures, producing outcomes from collaboration to conflict, as seen in the tension between cultural preservation and external forces like global capitalism. On a planetary scale, humanity’s actions, though small in the context of Earth’s history, have triggered profound ecological and geological changes, highlighting our interconnectedness with the planet’s systems. Impact defies simple measurement or control, manifesting as chain reactions and emergent phenomena that transcend individual intentions or collective agendas. Its relational nature reminds us to navigate its complexities with humility and awareness, fostering sustainable coexistence at every level. Whether between individuals, societies, or humanity and the planet, impact underscores the interconnected and unpredictable essence of our existence.

Work cited

Mudede, Charles Tonderai, and Charles Tonderai Mudede is a Zimbabwean-born cultural critic.

“Neoliberalism and the New Afro-Pessimism: Djibril Diop Mambéty’s Hyènes - Journal #67.” E, www.e-flux.com/journal/67/60719/neoliberalism-and-the-new-afro-pessimism-djibril-diop-mambety-s-hyenes/. Accessed 14 Mar. 2025.

Chakrabarty, Dipesh. “The planet: An emergent humanist category.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 46, no.

1, Sept. 2019, pp. 1–31, https://doi.org/10.1086/705298.

Haraway, Donna, and Donna J. Haraway is Distinguished Professor Emerita in the History of

Consciousness Department at the University of California. “Tentacular Thinking: Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Chthulucene - Journal #75.” E, www.e-flux.com/journal/75/67125/tentacular-thinking-anthropocene-capitalocene-chthulucene/. Accessed 14 Mar. 2025.