Avoiding the ‘Anthropocene’?: An Assessment of the Extent and Nature of Engagement with Environmental Issues in Peace Research

Q4 Social Sciences Peace and Conflict Studies Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.46743/1082-7307/2021.1673
Rhys Kelly
{"title":"Avoiding the ‘Anthropocene’?: An Assessment of the Extent and Nature of Engagement with Environmental Issues in Peace Research","authors":"Rhys Kelly","doi":"10.46743/1082-7307/2021.1673","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article critically examines the extent and nature of engagement with environmental issues within the field of peace research, and specifically with the unfolding ecological crisis (‘the Anthropocene’). A representative sample of journals and book series associated with peace research were analysed in order to a. quantify the extent of engagement with climate change and other environmental issues in peace research, and b. assess the range of discursive positions vis-a-vis the environment represented in the sample. The article finds that, in comparison to other ‘thematic niches’, environmental issues have received limited attention. It also finds that the dominant orientation of publications that do have an environmental focus can be considered ‘reformist’ - largely concerned with or assuming the possibility of significant continuity from the present. More ‘radical’ perspectives are present but in a much lower proportion. Whilst acknowledging the validity of and need for a plurality of perspectives and approaches, it is argued that the scientific evidence of an accelerating and increasingly dangerous ecological crisis does raise challenging questions for peace research. The article concludes with a call for renewed debate on the purpose(s) and assumptions of peace research, informed by a wider range of perspectives on environmental issues. It is a contribution to a tradition of critical reflection within the field but is the first to provide a systematic and grounded analysis of engagement with and perspectives on, the environment within peace research.","PeriodicalId":52516,"journal":{"name":"Peace and Conflict Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Peace and Conflict Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46743/1082-7307/2021.1673","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article critically examines the extent and nature of engagement with environmental issues within the field of peace research, and specifically with the unfolding ecological crisis (‘the Anthropocene’). A representative sample of journals and book series associated with peace research were analysed in order to a. quantify the extent of engagement with climate change and other environmental issues in peace research, and b. assess the range of discursive positions vis-a-vis the environment represented in the sample. The article finds that, in comparison to other ‘thematic niches’, environmental issues have received limited attention. It also finds that the dominant orientation of publications that do have an environmental focus can be considered ‘reformist’ - largely concerned with or assuming the possibility of significant continuity from the present. More ‘radical’ perspectives are present but in a much lower proportion. Whilst acknowledging the validity of and need for a plurality of perspectives and approaches, it is argued that the scientific evidence of an accelerating and increasingly dangerous ecological crisis does raise challenging questions for peace research. The article concludes with a call for renewed debate on the purpose(s) and assumptions of peace research, informed by a wider range of perspectives on environmental issues. It is a contribution to a tradition of critical reflection within the field but is the first to provide a systematic and grounded analysis of engagement with and perspectives on, the environment within peace research.
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
避免“人类世”?对和平研究中涉及环境问题的程度和性质的评估
本文批判性地考察了和平研究领域内参与环境问题的程度和性质,特别是正在展开的生态危机(“人类世”)。对与和平研究相关的期刊和丛书的代表性样本进行了分析,以便A .量化和平研究中对气候变化和其他环境问题的参与程度,b.评估样本中所代表的相对于环境的话语立场的范围。文章发现,与其他“主题利基”相比,环境问题受到的关注有限。它还发现,确实以环境为重点的出版物的主导方向可以被认为是“改革派的”——主要关注或假设从现在开始有重大连续性的可能性。更“激进”的观点是存在的,但比例要低得多。在承认多种观点和方法的有效性和必要性的同时,有人认为,加速和日益危险的生态危机的科学证据确实为和平研究提出了具有挑战性的问题。文章最后呼吁重新就和平研究的目的和假设进行辩论,并从更广泛的环境问题角度出发。这是对该领域内批判性反思传统的贡献,但也是第一次对和平研究中的环境参与和观点进行系统和有根据的分析。
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
Peace and Conflict Studies
Peace and Conflict Studies Social Sciences-Safety Research
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
RMB Internationalization and Belt and Road Initiative with the Chinese approach to the RMB Inflow-Outflow Imbalance Refugees as Threats and Aid as Deterrence Tool: How Do Refugee Movements Affect Aid Allocation of European Donors? Internalization of Sustainable Development Goals by Local Governments: An Analysis on the Adoption and Diffusion of SDGs Policy Ethnic Inequality and Support for Democracy in Africa Postmodern War and the Politics of Speed
×
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