Pub Date : 2023-08-24DOI: 10.1177/00471178231194710
Farai Chipato, David Chandler
The contemporary era of the Anthropocene has undermined linear views of progress and development. In its wake, alternative futural imaginaries have become central to critical and decolonial accounts in the discipline of International Relations. We argue that radical imaginaries of alternative non-modern futures risk failing to account fully for the ongoing violence and exclusions of modernity. We identify two strands of Anthropocene work: firstly, the critique posed by ‘posthuman’ ontologies of relation and entanglement, seeking new modes of governance in the face of climate catastrophe; secondly, decolonial affirmative ways of being, drawn from the experiences of the dispossessed in modernity. Both these approaches to futurity seek to move beyond a modernist world to new futures. In our argument, we set out an alternative perspective, the Black Horizon, which rejects the call to imagine new productive futures, and instead focusses on the deconstruction of modernity, in search of ending the current world of antiblackness, rather than critique or affirm its existence. Thus, even though contemporary critical and decolonial approaches stress the attention to ontology, alterity and difference, in their attempts to ground alternative worlds in existing practices or knowledges, they offer salvific alternatives, whilst leaving the foundations of our current world intact.
{"title":"After the end of the world? Rethinking temporalities of critique and affirmation in the Anthropocene","authors":"Farai Chipato, David Chandler","doi":"10.1177/00471178231194710","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178231194710","url":null,"abstract":"The contemporary era of the Anthropocene has undermined linear views of progress and development. In its wake, alternative futural imaginaries have become central to critical and decolonial accounts in the discipline of International Relations. We argue that radical imaginaries of alternative non-modern futures risk failing to account fully for the ongoing violence and exclusions of modernity. We identify two strands of Anthropocene work: firstly, the critique posed by ‘posthuman’ ontologies of relation and entanglement, seeking new modes of governance in the face of climate catastrophe; secondly, decolonial affirmative ways of being, drawn from the experiences of the dispossessed in modernity. Both these approaches to futurity seek to move beyond a modernist world to new futures. In our argument, we set out an alternative perspective, the Black Horizon, which rejects the call to imagine new productive futures, and instead focusses on the deconstruction of modernity, in search of ending the current world of antiblackness, rather than critique or affirm its existence. Thus, even though contemporary critical and decolonial approaches stress the attention to ontology, alterity and difference, in their attempts to ground alternative worlds in existing practices or knowledges, they offer salvific alternatives, whilst leaving the foundations of our current world intact.","PeriodicalId":47031,"journal":{"name":"International Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81986556","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-21DOI: 10.1177/00471178231193299
Andrea Schapper, Cebuan Bliss
In this article, we argue that animal rights and welfare are largely neglected at the United Nations (UN) and in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The UN Sustainability Agenda is not transformative because it lacks a serious (re-)consideration of the relationship between human beings, non-human animals and other components of nature. We propose four ways to strengthen animal rights and animal welfare at the UN: (1) we suggest creating a UN organisation working on animal protection, (2) we support earlier ideas to include an additional SDG on animal welfare in the UN Sustainability Agenda, (3) we propose to strengthen animals rights within the rights of nature framework using the UN as a forum to advance non-anthropocentric norms, (4) we recommend introducing procedural rights for animals in projects linked to SDG funding. Our research is based on an integrative literature review and a document analysis of UN documents, declarations and resolutions.
{"title":"Transforming our world? Strengthening animal rights and animal welfare at the United Nations","authors":"Andrea Schapper, Cebuan Bliss","doi":"10.1177/00471178231193299","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178231193299","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we argue that animal rights and welfare are largely neglected at the United Nations (UN) and in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The UN Sustainability Agenda is not transformative because it lacks a serious (re-)consideration of the relationship between human beings, non-human animals and other components of nature. We propose four ways to strengthen animal rights and animal welfare at the UN: (1) we suggest creating a UN organisation working on animal protection, (2) we support earlier ideas to include an additional SDG on animal welfare in the UN Sustainability Agenda, (3) we propose to strengthen animals rights within the rights of nature framework using the UN as a forum to advance non-anthropocentric norms, (4) we recommend introducing procedural rights for animals in projects linked to SDG funding. Our research is based on an integrative literature review and a document analysis of UN documents, declarations and resolutions.","PeriodicalId":47031,"journal":{"name":"International Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77366044","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-10DOI: 10.1177/00471178231191292
Tore Fougner
If diplomacy is considered an alternative to war, can the ongoing human ‘war against animals’ be replaced with diplomacy between humans and other animals? While many scholars and practitioners of diplomacy can be expected to dismiss such an idea out of hand, this essay encourages us to think more seriously and thoroughly about what it might imply to engage diplomatically with nonhuman animals. Doing so requires a somewhat unconventional conception of diplomacy, and some scholars have already done much to rethink diplomacy in suitable ways (despite the persistent anthropocentrism). Combining such work with political science scholarship on human-animal relations, indigenous peoples’ relations with animals, various notions of animal ambassadorship and the study of animal behaviour in natural settings, the essay argues that interspecies diplomacy is possible and urges scholars to further explore this and how the possibility in question can be translated into reality.
{"title":"Animals and diplomacy: on the prospect for interspecies diplomacy","authors":"Tore Fougner","doi":"10.1177/00471178231191292","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178231191292","url":null,"abstract":"If diplomacy is considered an alternative to war, can the ongoing human ‘war against animals’ be replaced with diplomacy between humans and other animals? While many scholars and practitioners of diplomacy can be expected to dismiss such an idea out of hand, this essay encourages us to think more seriously and thoroughly about what it might imply to engage diplomatically with nonhuman animals. Doing so requires a somewhat unconventional conception of diplomacy, and some scholars have already done much to rethink diplomacy in suitable ways (despite the persistent anthropocentrism). Combining such work with political science scholarship on human-animal relations, indigenous peoples’ relations with animals, various notions of animal ambassadorship and the study of animal behaviour in natural settings, the essay argues that interspecies diplomacy is possible and urges scholars to further explore this and how the possibility in question can be translated into reality.","PeriodicalId":47031,"journal":{"name":"International Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86572837","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-09DOI: 10.1177/00471178231192345
E. Cudworth, Stephen Hobden
This article explores what it means to ‘animalise’ International Relations (IR). 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 understanding of a more than human world is always going to be an incomplete account. The paper argues for the animalising 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.
{"title":"Animalising International Relations","authors":"E. Cudworth, Stephen Hobden","doi":"10.1177/00471178231192345","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178231192345","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores what it means to ‘animalise’ International Relations (IR). 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 understanding of a more than human world is always going to be an incomplete account. The paper argues for the animalising 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.","PeriodicalId":47031,"journal":{"name":"International Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82387338","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-08DOI: 10.1177/00471178231191296
S. Tauber
International Relations (IR) scholarship on Global Social Movements (GSMs) has helped usher in post-realist theories, such as constructivism and critical IR. Despite its innovativeness, extant GSM research is limited because it ignores the relevance of the Global Animal Advocacy Movement (GAAM), which seeks to end animal exploitation. The omission of GAAM is emblematic of IR’s anthropocentric disregard of the relevance of animals in global politics. An emergent literature recognizes the importance of animals in IR, and this paper contributes to the establishment of this animal-inclusive IR by examining the significance of GAAM. First, it demonstrates that GAAM fits the criteria of a GSM; therefore, it is worthy of study in IR. Additionally, this paper argues that IR should recognize that nonhuman animals also participate in GAAM. Both arguments not only demonstrate GAAM’s relevance, but they should also contribute to the development of an animal-inclusive IR. The paper closes by advocating for a methodologically diverse research agenda on GAAM.
{"title":"The Global Animal Advocacy Movement in International Relations: toward an animal-inclusive IR","authors":"S. Tauber","doi":"10.1177/00471178231191296","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178231191296","url":null,"abstract":"International Relations (IR) scholarship on Global Social Movements (GSMs) has helped usher in post-realist theories, such as constructivism and critical IR. Despite its innovativeness, extant GSM research is limited because it ignores the relevance of the Global Animal Advocacy Movement (GAAM), which seeks to end animal exploitation. The omission of GAAM is emblematic of IR’s anthropocentric disregard of the relevance of animals in global politics. An emergent literature recognizes the importance of animals in IR, and this paper contributes to the establishment of this animal-inclusive IR by examining the significance of GAAM. First, it demonstrates that GAAM fits the criteria of a GSM; therefore, it is worthy of study in IR. Additionally, this paper argues that IR should recognize that nonhuman animals also participate in GAAM. Both arguments not only demonstrate GAAM’s relevance, but they should also contribute to the development of an animal-inclusive IR. The paper closes by advocating for a methodologically diverse research agenda on GAAM.","PeriodicalId":47031,"journal":{"name":"International Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84436004","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-08DOI: 10.1177/00471178231191293
E. Meijer
In this article I argue for and sketch the outlines of a multispecies social connection model, based on the work of Iris Marion Young. This multispecies social connection model responds to shortcomings in existing approaches to multispecies global justice in animal philosophy and IR. Because the model focuses on concrete structures of injustice, it allows for taking into account relations without categorizing other animals beforehand and for being attentive to nonhuman animal agency, and it recognizes the entanglement of political and economic forces in perpetuating injustice towards animals. The multispecies model also brings to light problems with anthropocentrism in theorizing structural injustice and responsibility. Analyzing multispecies structures of injustice shows how different forms of oppression are connected globally, which offers a better view of animal and human oppression than anthropocentric theorizing. This is important for determining the responsibilities of different kinds of social, political, and economic actors in working toward social change, and for knowing what to work toward. This model can either complement existing political models, or function as the starting point for new multispecies politics.
在这篇文章中，我以Iris Marion Young的作品为基础，论证并概述了一个多物种社会联系模型的轮廓。这种多物种社会联系模型回应了动物哲学和动物关系中现有的多物种全球正义方法的缺陷。由于该模型关注的是不公正的具体结构，它允许在不事先对其他动物进行分类的情况下考虑关系，并关注非人类动物的代理，它认识到政治和经济力量在使对动物的不公正永久化方面的纠缠。多物种模型还揭示了人类中心主义在理论结构不公正和责任方面的问题。分析多物种的不公正结构显示了不同形式的压迫是如何在全球范围内联系在一起的，这比人类中心主义的理论提供了一个更好的关于动物和人类压迫的观点。这对于确定不同类型的社会、政治和经济行动者在努力实现社会变革中的责任，以及知道朝着什么方向努力，是很重要的。这种模式既可以补充现有的政治模式，也可以作为新的多物种政治的起点。
{"title":"Global injustice and animals: towards a multispecies social connection model","authors":"E. Meijer","doi":"10.1177/00471178231191293","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178231191293","url":null,"abstract":"In this article I argue for and sketch the outlines of a multispecies social connection model, based on the work of Iris Marion Young. This multispecies social connection model responds to shortcomings in existing approaches to multispecies global justice in animal philosophy and IR. Because the model focuses on concrete structures of injustice, it allows for taking into account relations without categorizing other animals beforehand and for being attentive to nonhuman animal agency, and it recognizes the entanglement of political and economic forces in perpetuating injustice towards animals. The multispecies model also brings to light problems with anthropocentrism in theorizing structural injustice and responsibility. Analyzing multispecies structures of injustice shows how different forms of oppression are connected globally, which offers a better view of animal and human oppression than anthropocentric theorizing. This is important for determining the responsibilities of different kinds of social, political, and economic actors in working toward social change, and for knowing what to work toward. This model can either complement existing political models, or function as the starting point for new multispecies politics.","PeriodicalId":47031,"journal":{"name":"International Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88890171","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-05DOI: 10.1177/00471178231191297
Josh Milburn, Sara van Goozen
Animals have been almost entirely absent from scholarly appraisals of the ethics of war. Just-war theory concerns when communities may permissibly resort to war; who may wage war; who they may harm in war; and what kinds of harm they may cause. Each question can be complicated by animals’ inclusion. After introducing just-war theory and the argument for an animal-inclusive just-war theory, this paper reviews ethical appraisals of war on animals’ behalf and wars against animals. It then turns to consider harm to and use of animals in war. It concludes by considering questions in the ethics of war beyond just-war theory as traditionally construed.
{"title":"Animals and the ethics of war: a call for an inclusive just-war theory","authors":"Josh Milburn, Sara van Goozen","doi":"10.1177/00471178231191297","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178231191297","url":null,"abstract":"Animals have been almost entirely absent from scholarly appraisals of the ethics of war. Just-war theory concerns when communities may permissibly resort to war; who may wage war; who they may harm in war; and what kinds of harm they may cause. Each question can be complicated by animals’ inclusion. After introducing just-war theory and the argument for an animal-inclusive just-war theory, this paper reviews ethical appraisals of war on animals’ behalf and wars against animals. It then turns to consider harm to and use of animals in war. It concludes by considering questions in the ethics of war beyond just-war theory as traditionally construed.","PeriodicalId":47031,"journal":{"name":"International Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84146720","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-30DOI: 10.1177/00471178231191294
J. C. Pereira, J. Renner
Animals are integral to world politics, yet largely neglected in International Relations (IR). This Special Issue (SI) aims to address this gap and offers a collection of original research articles that investigate issues pertaining to sovereignty, power, diplomacy, the ethics of war, justice and emancipation, environmental governance, activism and international law. The articles make animals visible within those realms, raise novel questions and develop approaches through which the specific role(s) of animals and human-animal relations in international politics may be theoretically understood and empirically explored. They open a conversation between IR and Critical Animal Studies (CAS). The SI contributes to a broader understanding of the complex and interconnected nature of human-animal relations, and therefore to the reorientation of IR towards a post-anthropocentric perspective of world politics that renders the field better equipped to understand and address our current Anthropocene predicament. To introduce the SI, this article starts by addressing the invisibility of animals in IR and why this is problematic. It then provides an overview of the articles included in the SI and concludes by outlining a research agenda for the study of animals in IR.
{"title":"Animals in International Relations: a research agenda","authors":"J. C. Pereira, J. Renner","doi":"10.1177/00471178231191294","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178231191294","url":null,"abstract":"Animals are integral to world politics, yet largely neglected in International Relations (IR). This Special Issue (SI) aims to address this gap and offers a collection of original research articles that investigate issues pertaining to sovereignty, power, diplomacy, the ethics of war, justice and emancipation, environmental governance, activism and international law. The articles make animals visible within those realms, raise novel questions and develop approaches through which the specific role(s) of animals and human-animal relations in international politics may be theoretically understood and empirically explored. They open a conversation between IR and Critical Animal Studies (CAS). The SI contributes to a broader understanding of the complex and interconnected nature of human-animal relations, and therefore to the reorientation of IR towards a post-anthropocentric perspective of world politics that renders the field better equipped to understand and address our current Anthropocene predicament. To introduce the SI, this article starts by addressing the invisibility of animals in IR and why this is problematic. It then provides an overview of the articles included in the SI and concludes by outlining a research agenda for the study of animals in IR.","PeriodicalId":47031,"journal":{"name":"International Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79179861","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-24DOI: 10.1177/00471178231186392
Nicholas Michelsen, Pablo de Orellana, Filippo Costa Buranelli
New Right actors are vocally seeking to change key international relations practices and institutions. We enquire how their philosophy of the international, which we call Reactionary Internationalism, is being socialised by a diverse group of international actors. Engaging with English School conceptualisations of international society and deploying discursive analysis of diplomatic positions, we examine the diplomacy of New Right actors and sympathisers on issues of rights and the limits of sovereign power. Through this empirical analysis it is demonstrated that opportunistic alliances between New Right politicians in democratic states, and authoritarian states such as China, are solidifying into an international compact that advocates radical normative change in international relations. This programme is centred on a new constitutive principle (birth-cultural sovereignty) and two new institutions (exclusive spheres of competence and transactionalism), that establish the terms of reference for a reactionary international society.
{"title":"The reactionary internationale: the rise of the new right and the reconstruction of international society","authors":"Nicholas Michelsen, Pablo de Orellana, Filippo Costa Buranelli","doi":"10.1177/00471178231186392","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178231186392","url":null,"abstract":"New Right actors are vocally seeking to change key international relations practices and institutions. We enquire how their philosophy of the international, which we call Reactionary Internationalism, is being socialised by a diverse group of international actors. Engaging with English School conceptualisations of international society and deploying discursive analysis of diplomatic positions, we examine the diplomacy of New Right actors and sympathisers on issues of rights and the limits of sovereign power. Through this empirical analysis it is demonstrated that opportunistic alliances between New Right politicians in democratic states, and authoritarian states such as China, are solidifying into an international compact that advocates radical normative change in international relations. This programme is centred on a new constitutive principle (birth-cultural sovereignty) and two new institutions (exclusive spheres of competence and transactionalism), that establish the terms of reference for a reactionary international society.","PeriodicalId":47031,"journal":{"name":"International Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89270944","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-22DOI: 10.1177/00471178231187499
K. Fierke, Nicola Mackay
The discussion between the developing and developed world in Egypt during COP27 brought the history of colonialism and its impact on climate change to the table, as did the earlier floods in Pakistan. The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of unacknowledged grief, shame and guilt, accruing over centuries, on our ability to move forward to a more sustainable future. At stake is not only a question of ‘loss and damage’ for those who have suffered disproportionately in the past and present, but also the need to acknowledge how past practice has set the stage for inequality and climate change in the global future. In this article we develop concepts of unknown knowns and ungrieved grief, and explore the mechanisms by which populations collectively turn away from uncomfortable or shameful truths. The failure to look at the past has transgenerational consequences, as present distractions contribute to an inability to ‘see’ the consequences of past and present action for future generations. The final section explores the safety paradox that arises from the fragmented safety of turning to conflict and war, and a holistic safety that requires grieving for the global whole.
{"title":"The Safety Paradox: Unknown Knowns, Ungrieved Grief, and Collective Agreements not to Know","authors":"K. Fierke, Nicola Mackay","doi":"10.1177/00471178231187499","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178231187499","url":null,"abstract":"The discussion between the developing and developed world in Egypt during COP27 brought the history of colonialism and its impact on climate change to the table, as did the earlier floods in Pakistan. The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of unacknowledged grief, shame and guilt, accruing over centuries, on our ability to move forward to a more sustainable future. At stake is not only a question of ‘loss and damage’ for those who have suffered disproportionately in the past and present, but also the need to acknowledge how past practice has set the stage for inequality and climate change in the global future. In this article we develop concepts of unknown knowns and ungrieved grief, and explore the mechanisms by which populations collectively turn away from uncomfortable or shameful truths. The failure to look at the past has transgenerational consequences, as present distractions contribute to an inability to ‘see’ the consequences of past and present action for future generations. The final section explores the safety paradox that arises from the fragmented safety of turning to conflict and war, and a holistic safety that requires grieving for the global whole.","PeriodicalId":47031,"journal":{"name":"International Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84702520","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：