Zoonotic Politics: The Impossible Bordering of the Leaky Boundaries of Species

Zoonotic pandemics shine an uncomfortable light on how human lifeways facilitate the sharing of pathogens across species. Yet our lack of acknowledgement of our shared vulnerability with those non-human animals we raise or hunt to kill and eat, whose habitats we encroach upon and destroy, whose populations we undermine and threaten, has led us to the current human health crisis. The predominant political response to zoonotic pandemic has been bordering practices of surveillance, securitisation and bodily separation. These practices reflect intra-human and species hierarchies. They also fail to acknowledge the extent to which the boundaries of species are leaky, and are continually breached. A posthumanist zoonotic politics seeks not to attempt to border the leaky boundaries of species, but rather to insist on a re-ordering of species relations towards less exploitative and extractive ways of sharing the planet with the myriad creatures that constitute our world

Animalizing International Relations

This article explores what it means to ‘animalise’ International Relations. The posthuman move in the social sciences has involved the process of de-centring the human, replacing an anthropocentric focus with a view of the human as embedded within a complex network of inter-species relations. In a previous work we drew attention to the lack of analysis within International Relations of the key role played by more-than human animals in situations of conflict. The current COVID-19 pandemic again indicates that an analysis of international relations that does not have at its core an understating of a more than human world is always going to be an incomplete account. The paper argues for the animalizing of International Relations in order to enhance inclusivity, and suggests five ways in which this might be approached. As it becomes increasingly clear that a climate-related collapse is imminent, we argue for a transformative approach to the discipline, stressing interlinked networks and a shared vulnerability as a political project which challenges capitalism (advanced/late/carboniferous/genocidal) and the failure of states to address the concatenation of crises that life on the planet confronts

Anarchism's Posthuman Future

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the URI link.In previous work, we have argued that there are considerable areas of overlap between anarchism and complexity thinking, in particular because both explore the possibilities for the development of order without a specific source of authority. In more recent interventions we have developed a posthuman world view as a political project based on a foundation in complexity thinking. Hierarchical and exclusive forms of social organisation are usually understood by anarchists to be forms of domination. It is unsurprising then, that the history of anarchist thought and practical political engagement demonstrates a concern with an eclectic range of dominations. In this paper, we argue that in questioning our treatment of the environment, or ‘nature’ and in problematising some of our relations with non-human beings and things, some anarchism usefully informs the politics of posthumanism. We trace the past and contemporary linkages between anarchism and posthumanist thinking, drawing on literature in the overlapping fields of political ecologism, new materialism and animal studies. However, we also argue that there is a contradiction embedded in arguments for the liberation of human and non-human beings and things and a recognition that our world was ever more-than-human. The western conception of the human as an autonomous, rational being able to make decisions and choices about actions has only developed alongside, and in contradistinction to, the ‘animal’. These conceptions of autonomy and rationality have been important to all western left political projects, including much of the politics of ecologism and anarchism, where the notion of ‘freedom’ is writ large. If anarchism is to have a posthuman future, we consider that it needs to interrogate and perhaps loosen its ties to some established conceptual building blocks of the western political tradition

Anarchy and Anarchism: Towards a Theory of Complex International Systems

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.The use of ‘anarchy’ in International Relations theory appears very different from its incarnations in political philosophy. Whilst realist scholars have used anarchy to describe an absence of centralised political authority in which states wield differential power, political philosophers in the anarchist tradition have mounted a critique of the coercive and compulsory powers of states themselves. This article argues for reconceptualising ‘anarchy’ in International Relations theory using insights from complexity theory. We would describe the international system as a complex adaptive system which has a tendency to self-organisation. Furthermore, in distinct contrast to Waltz, we argue that the international system has to be seen as embedded within a range of physical systems, and other social systems including those which reproduce a range of (gendered, racial, class-based, colonial) relations of domination. Here insights from anarchist social ecologism can be utilised to further accounts of hierarchy and dominance within International Relations

Liberation for Straw Dogs? Old Materialism, New Materialism, and the Challenge of an Emancipatory Posthumanism

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.The term ‘new materialism’ has recently gained saliency as a descriptor for an eclectic range of positions that question the human-centred and human-exclusive focus of scholarship across the humanities and social sciences. In turn these emerging perspectives have been subject to critique by those writing in the established materialist tradition, who argue that new materialism ignores the unique specificity of human agency and the transformatory capabilities of our species. Our previous interventions have endorsed a particular account of posthumanism that draws together complexity influenced systems theory with elements of political ecologism that have incorporated aspects of established materialist and humanist thinking. This article rejects the old materialist critique that denies the emancipatory potential of posthumanist thinking, and explores the potential for an emancipatory posthumanism

Being "a Good Animal": Adorno, Posthumanism, and International Relations

This article examines the potential contribution of the work of Theodor Adorno to the development of a posthuman analysis of international relations. Despite a recent blossoming of “Adorno studies,” his writings on nature, particularly his concerns regarding human relations with other species, have received comparatively little attention. The article argues that many of the central concerns driving the recent development of posthuman analyses of international relations overlap with some of Adorno’s core preoccupations. In Dialectic of Enlightenment in particular, much concern is directed at the perceived disenchantment with nature and the impacts of this disenchantment both on human relations with the rest of nature, but also with inter-human relations. Adorno’s focus on the attention to suffering being the “condition for all truth” is not restricted simply to the human and coincides with the ethical concerns of posthuman approaches. Finally, whilst it has been claimed that Adorno’s work, especially his notion of the totally administered society, leads to a political impasse, it will be suggested here that recent work by Fabian Freyenhagen on the practical elements of Adorno’s philosophy suggest that our priority, rather than living rightly, should be on “living less wrongly.

Of Parts and Wholes: International Relations beyond the Human

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.While some theorists in International Relations have engaged with thinking about complexity, we would argue that few have thought it through to its logical conclusion – the interconnectedness of systems, and the implications for agency and structure. This article examines the structure–agency question using the framework of ‘posthuman international relations’, which draws on recent thinking in complexity and argues for an approach to the study of global politics that is post-Newtonian and non-anthropocentric. Key elements of a complexity-based approach are examined, and it is argued that these provide a novel way of considering issues of agency and structure. They also raise issues for the analysis of agency and the link between actions and outcomes. Complex systems can present problems of analysis related to unpredictability, causality and non-linearity. Having laid out a framework for thinking about action and context in international politics, the article turns to questions of agency and practice within complex systems. Perhaps the most significant claim here is that it is possible to conceive of agency beyond the human. Drawing upon Margaret Archer’s discussions of primary and corporate agency, a threefold approach to thinking about structure and agency is developed, which allows us to think about agency beyond the human. Finally, an explanation is given as to why a complex approach to thinking about international relations ultimately implies a posthuman perspective

Beyond Environmental Security: Complex Systems, Multiple Inequalities and Environmental Risks

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.The development of environmental security as an academic project is an important contribution in theorising the politics of global environmental change and shifting security contexts, but there are significant problems with the ways in which environmental issues have been incorporated into security discussions. Approaches to theorising environmental questions in international politics in terms of environmental conflict or environmental security tend to reproduce a dualistic understanding of human relations to ‘the environment’ in which humans are either threatened by or pose a threat to ‘nature’. An approach in terms of ecological security does account for changes in the biosphere resultant from human endeavours and understands social relations as ecologically embedded, but it underplays the extent to which multiple and complex inequalities shape the environmental impact of different populations. Drawing on concepts from complexity theory, alongside different elements of political ecologism, it is argued that human relationships with environments are characterised by social intersectionality and complex inequalities. Complexity approaches can help capture the patterns of these relations and understand the co-constitution of human communities and the ‘natural environment’

Complexity, Ecologism, and Posthuman Politics

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.Theorisations of the political in general, and international politics in particular, have been little concerned with the vast variety of other, non-human populations of species and ‘things’. This anthropocentrism limits the possibilities for the discipline to contribute on core issues and prescribes a very limited scope for study. As a response to this narrow focus, this article calls for the development of a posthuman approach to the study of international politics. By posthuman, we mean an analysis that is based on complexity theory, rejects Newtonian social sciences, and decentres the human as the object of study. We argue for a decentring of ‘the human’ in our scholarship as imperative to understanding the complexity of the world. However, this approach also has a political incentive, which we describe as ‘complex ecologism’