Hobbes in the Anthropocene: Reconsidering the State of Nature in Its Relevance for Governing

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Alternatives Pub Date : 2021-02-01 DOI:10.1177/03043754211008677
Maximilian Lakitsch
{"title":"Hobbes in the Anthropocene: Reconsidering the State of Nature in Its Relevance for Governing","authors":"Maximilian Lakitsch","doi":"10.1177/03043754211008677","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The theoretical work of Thomas Hobbes marks the dawn of political modernity and thus also the beginning of modern reasoning about governing. In his Leviathan, Hobbes creates the modern space of the political through the exclusion of the world’s social and natural abundance. This crossroads of political thinking might not least be of relevance for the Anthropocene. After all, affirming the Anthropocene returns mankind to a cosmos of infinite human–nature interrelationships, which strongly resembles Hobbes’s conceptual depiction of the premodern state of nature and its incomprehensible, contingent, and precarious world, a world that Hobbes had intended to ban for good. In this context, this article reconsiders the state of nature’s internal dynamics in its relevance for governing in the Anthropocene—at the expense of the normative claims of modernist governing. After all, embracing the complex ontologies of the Anthropocene and the state of nature disperses agency among the human and nonhuman world, which questions the idea of ethical and political accountability. Without such a reference, governing runs the risk of becoming arbitrary and thereby another shallow projection of modernist conceptions. This article develops an interpretation of political subjectivity as a reference for governing, deriving from the materialistic world of the Hobbesian state of nature. On this foundation, the article elaborates on how this reading of subjectivity reconfigures the conception of political space and how this shift affects the scope of governing.","PeriodicalId":46677,"journal":{"name":"Alternatives","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/03043754211008677","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alternatives","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754211008677","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

The theoretical work of Thomas Hobbes marks the dawn of political modernity and thus also the beginning of modern reasoning about governing. In his Leviathan, Hobbes creates the modern space of the political through the exclusion of the world’s social and natural abundance. This crossroads of political thinking might not least be of relevance for the Anthropocene. After all, affirming the Anthropocene returns mankind to a cosmos of infinite human–nature interrelationships, which strongly resembles Hobbes’s conceptual depiction of the premodern state of nature and its incomprehensible, contingent, and precarious world, a world that Hobbes had intended to ban for good. In this context, this article reconsiders the state of nature’s internal dynamics in its relevance for governing in the Anthropocene—at the expense of the normative claims of modernist governing. After all, embracing the complex ontologies of the Anthropocene and the state of nature disperses agency among the human and nonhuman world, which questions the idea of ethical and political accountability. Without such a reference, governing runs the risk of becoming arbitrary and thereby another shallow projection of modernist conceptions. This article develops an interpretation of political subjectivity as a reference for governing, deriving from the materialistic world of the Hobbesian state of nature. On this foundation, the article elaborates on how this reading of subjectivity reconfigures the conception of political space and how this shift affects the scope of governing.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人类世的霍布斯:重新思考自然状态与治理的相关性
托马斯·霍布斯的理论著作标志着政治现代性的曙光,也标志着现代治国理学的开端。在《利维坦》中,霍布斯通过对世界社会和自然富足的排斥,创造了现代政治空间。这种政治思想的十字路口可能与人类世有着密切的关系。毕竟,肯定人类世使人类回到了一个无限的人与自然相互关系的宇宙,这与霍布斯对前现代自然状态及其不可理解、偶然和不稳定的世界的概念描述非常相似,霍布斯曾打算永远禁止这个世界。在这种背景下,本文以牺牲现代主义治理的规范性主张为代价,重新考虑了自然内部动力状态与人类世治理的相关性。毕竟,接受人类世和自然状态的复杂本体论会分散人类和非人类世界之间的能动性,这对伦理和政治责任的概念提出了质疑。如果没有这样的参考,治理就有可能变得武断,从而成为现代主义概念的又一次肤浅投射。本文从霍布斯自然状态的物质主义世界出发,对政治主体性进行了解读,作为执政的参考。在此基础上,本文阐述了这种对主体性的解读如何重构政治空间的概念,以及这种转变如何影响执政范围。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Alternatives
Alternatives INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
15.40%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: A peer-reviewed journal, Alternatives explores the possibilities of new forms of political practice and identity under increasingly global conditions. Specifically, the editors focus on the changing relationships between local political practices and identities and emerging forms of global economy, culture, and polity. Published in association with the Center for the Study of Developing Societies (India).
期刊最新文献
What Do We Know About People’s Politics? Testing a New Framework for Understanding Different Conceptions of Politics Running in Place: “Czeching” out the W/E(a)stern Performative Presidential Geoprostitution Discoursive Region Building in Latvia: The Case for a Contemporary Identity Search Civil-military Relations in Mexico: From One-Party Dominance to Post-Transitional Insecurity Sovereignty, Discipline, Governmentality, and Pastorate: The Ménage à Quatre of Contemporary Authoritarian and Right-Wing Populist Power
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1