shoaling ecologies: reimagining ecosystemic and psychic healing
the ocean is a global commons, meaning it belongs to everyone, and no one, at the same time. it acts as a dynamic site of ontological convergence, a space where human and nonhuman processes interact and influence one another in a manner that goes beyond individual persons or species. the ocean, like all ecosystems, is constantly becoming, continually absorbing the marks of anthropogenic disruption, which increasingly take the form of pharmaceutical pollutants. among these pollutants, antipsychotic drugs are among the most pervasive forms of contamination, a byproduct of human psychic management now embedded in the very body of the ocean. the consequences of these substances on aquatic life are not merely ecological; they are ecological-psychic phenomena that necessitate a reimagining of healing, care, and relationality across human and nonhuman domains.
pharmaceuticals in the water
in 1968, ecologist Garrett Hardin introduced the concept of the "tragedy of the commons," arguing that environmental degradation arises when individuals prioritize their self-interest over the collective well-being. in recent decades, antipsychotic medications, core to contemporary human psychic practice, reflect this tragedy in an ongoing spillover into the oceans. these substances are discharged into water systems through the routine functioning of human society and bypass traditional purification methods, contaminating rivers, lakes, and oceans. in fact, up to 90 percent of oral medications that pass through the human body enter the water supply, marking these waters as a site of psychic dislocation (Ngqwala and Muchesa 2020). in this way, pharmaceuticals are not simply pollutants; they are anthropogenic agents which alter the psychic and ecological territories of aquatic organisms.
for fish, exposure to these drugs acts as an unexpected form of molecular disruption, transforming their neurochemistry and natural behaviors in the process. moreover, in their natural environments, fish do not exist as individuals acting in self-interest, but instead as participants in a larger whole. a collective becoming that relies on the coordination of mutually dependent forms of life. shoaling, the process by which fish move together in unison, is an expression of this collective, an affective and relational movement that ensures shared survival and collective well-being. aquatic exposure to antipsychotics disrupts this collective process, with profound consequences for the organization of life within that system (Gould et al. 2021).
this contamination, however, does not stop at antipsychotics. it extends to a vast array of substances, like antibiotics, hormones, painkillers, that converge in the aquatic environment, accelerating this ecological and psychic transformation (Mezzelani et al. 2018). the waters become a site of continuous chemical change, where the flows of life are diverted and reconfigured, undermining a complex array of food webs and ecosystem dynamics. this pollution undercuts the stability of more than a specific organism or set of organisms—instead, it gradually erodes the connections that bind the entire ecosystem together.
shoaling as ecological reimagination
what does it mean to heal in a world where the borders between human and nonhuman bodies, between psyche and ecosystem, have been irreparably blurred? as anthropologist Anna Tsing contends, “human nature is an interspecies relationship” (Tsing 2012). under contemporary conditions which reject Tsing’s contention, addressing pharmaceutical disruption necessitates a reconfigured praxis, or an ecology of practices that recognizes the entanglements of human and nonhuman life. a conceptual shift from anthropocentric thinking to a more relational, more-than-human thinking is essential to account for the complexity of the interactions within the ecosystemic whole (Guattari 2005).
healing, in this context, is not about a return to a pre-existing state of non-polluted purity – but about navigating interspecies dependencies through new configurations of well-being (Shotwell 2016). to engage in the remapping of relations, we must account for the continuous interplay between material, psychic, and environmental forces. put more succinctly, Black feminist writer Alexis Pauline Gumbs calls for us to “expand our empathy and the boundaries of who we are… [and] identify with the experience of someone different, maybe someone of a whole different so-called species” (11:2020).
shoaling, the synchronized movement of fish in groups, lends to a method for practicing reciprocal care in the presence of psychological, ecological, and social crises. fish participating in a shoal, are not isolated units but linked members of a dynamic body, where fish move in response to one another—doing so through ongoing adjustments in body position, movement, and sensory input. shoaling also differs from the more commonly known schooling – in that shoaling describes any group of fish swimming in dynamic community. schooling, however, refers to highly synchronized and polarized movements, in which fish move in the same direction in a coordinated manner (Staugler 2018).
shoaling, therefore, emphasizes communal groupings and interactions without demanding strict alignment, reflecting a more flexible and relational dynamic. the shoal does not prescribe itself to a fixed destination. instead, it continuously adapts to the collective needs of the group and an ever-changing environment. the shoal therein embodies ecological reimagination: a constantly shifting, decentralized coordination of beings within an ecosystem. just as fish adapt their movements in response to changes in their surroundings, a human-nonhuman process of healing requires a similar adaptability.
this more-than-human collective model of healing challenges dominant, biomedical responses to intersecting crises. anthropogenic disruptions, such as pharmaceutical pollution, reverberate across ecosystems and affect the collective dynamics of more-than-human life. shoaling, however, offers an orientation towards relations which links siloed psychological and ecological interventions. the collective, decentralized nature of shoaling reminds us that ecological healing is a shared responsibility, one that requires collaborative, concerted efforts across multiple domains of life, from the individual to the community, from aquatic organisms to human societies.
mutual aid as shoaling
mutual aid, in the context of shoaling, is more than a strategic response to social, psychological, or ecological crises. rather, it is a fundamental reconfiguration of collective life that resists the rigid classifications of capitalist and state apparatuses. shoaling, as a social-ecological process, offers a method for defying the hierarchical and orienting towards responsive collaboration. shoaling fish are not isolated or autonomous; they become part of a collective rhythm that shifts and adapts to the currents, predators, and opportunities within their ecosystem. mutual aid shares this dynamic: it is not a matter of fixed duties or exact organization, but a fluid, emergent practice that arises from the broad interconnectedness of needs and desires.
in this sense, mutual aid is a form of collective convergence, a becoming with others – a network of relations that aligns temporarily to produce a shared moment of existence. like a shoal, mutual aid is not static; it is a continuous process of shared attention, where each act of cooperation remakes kinship and presents renewed possibilities for collective survival and flourishing (Piepzna-Samarasinha 2018). these acts of mutuality address more than immediate material needs; they cultivate transformative forms of solidarity that challenge prevailing structures of individualism and scarcity.
this is why and how mutual aid operates in opposition to the logic of sovereignty, state control, and capitalist accumulation, which seek to reduce relations to fixed categories and roles (Spade 2020). the state and capital treat individuals as isolated units, each in competition, each seeking to accumulate for themselves. but the practice of shoaling, as the practice of mutual aid, resists such rigidity by continuously reshaping and nurturing the meaning of shared survival. with mutuality as the basis, individuals cannot be understood as isolated entities or units; they are partners in a shared system of reciprocal care, protection, and support.
in practice, mutual aid operates through affective and material flows – whether through community kitchens, cooperative housing, or peer support for health and well-being (The Care Collective 2020; Thornton 2020). these are spaces where isolated individuals do not simply come into ownership of what they need; instead, they are moments where interspecies beings can come together in the practice of sustainable reciprocity. like fish in a shoal, participants give and receive in ways that transform the conditions of the collective, ensuring shared survival amidst multifold crises.
mutual aid as shoaling, in this way, is deeply ecological. it links the socio-political with the environmental, establishing care work as essential to anthropocentric well-being – as well as critical to interdependencies across human-nonhuman lives. situating mutual aid as shoaling further cements relationality as a foundational principle of living, into human nature as an interspecies relationship (Tsing 2012). it acts as a call to abolish the separation between individuals, communities, and ecosystems, and to forge new forms of communal existence that are rooted in cooperation, adaptability, and shared survival. the shoal does not and cannot know the future, but in its movement, it becomes a space where futures can emerge – non-hierarchical, collaborative, and continually remade in the practice of collective care.
renewed ecologies of care
the ocean is not a passive receptor of human waste but an active participant in processes of more-than-human becoming and transformation. aquatic pharmaceutical disruption presents more than an environmental issue; it is a destabilization of interconnected lives, reflecting the dire consequences of dominant approaches to health and healing. by embracing a relational approach to healing—one that attends to interspecies interdependencies—we can move towards crafting renewed ecologies of care, those which center the collective, relational, and ecological. healing, in this sense, necessitates a collective reimagination, a process of becoming together in ways that ensure the survival and well-being of humans and nonhumans alike.
References
The Care Collective. (2020). The Care Manifesto: The Politics of Interdependence. Verso.
Gould, S. L., Winter, M. J., Norton, W. H. J., & Tyler, C. R. (2021). The potential for adverse effects in fish exposed to antidepressants in the aquatic environment. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(24), 16299–16312. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04724
Gumbs, A. P. (2021). Undrowned: Black feminist lessons from marine mammals. AK Press.
Guattari, F. (2005). The three ecologies. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.
Mezzelani, M., Gorbi, S., & Regoli, F. (2018). Pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environments: evidence of emerged threat and future challenges for marine organisms. Marine environmental research, 140, 41-60.
Ngqwala, Nosiphiwe P., and Petros Muchesa. 2020. “Occurrence of Pharmaceuticals in Aquatic Environments: A Review and Potential Impacts in South Africa.” South African Journal of Science 116 (7/8): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2020/5730.
Piepzna-Samarasinha, Leak Lakshmi. (2018). Care Work: Dreaming Disability Justice. Arsenal Pulp Press.
Shotwell, A. (2016). Against purity: Living ethically in compromised times. U of Minnesota Press.
Spade, D. (2020). Solidarity not charity: Mutual aid for mobilization and survival. Social Text, 38(1), 131-151.
Staugler, B. (2018). Schooling Fish. UF/IFAS.
Thornton, C. (2020). The Hologram Feminist, Peer-to-Peer Health for a Post-Pandemic Future. Pluto Press.
Tsing, A. (2012). Unruly Edges: Mushrooms as Companion Species. Environmental Humanities, 1(1), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3610012