Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:17:00.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Complexity, ecologism, and posthuman politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2012

ERIKA CUDWORTH  and
STEPHEN HOBDEN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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’.

Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 643 - 664
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a discussion of anthropomorphism related to issues of environmental security see Cudworth, Erika and Hobden, Stephen, ‘Beyond Environmental Security: Complex Systems, Multiple Inequalities and Environmental Risks’, Environmental Politics, 20:1 (2011), pp. 42–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 For the purposes of this article, we use the terms international politics and international relations interchangeably. International Relations is used to describe the discipline which focuses on global processes, while international relations and international politics refer to the constituent features of those processes.

3 Braun, Bruce and Whatmore, Sarah J., ‘The Stuff of Politics: An Introduction’, in Braun, Bruce and Whatmore, Sarah J. (eds), Political Matter: Technoscience, Democracy and Public Life (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), p. ixGoogle Scholar.

4 See Badmington, Neil, Alien Chic: Posthumanism and the Other Within (London: Routledge, 2004)Google Scholar; Barry, Andrew, Political Machines: Governing a Technological Society (London: Anthone Press, 2001)Google Scholar.

5 As argued by Latour, Bruno, See We Have Never Been Modern (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993)Google Scholar; Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).

6 Wolfe, Cary, What is Posthumanism? (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), p. 47Google Scholar.

7 Derrida, Jacques, ‘The Animal That Therefore I am (More To Follow)’, Critical Enquiry, 28:2 (2002), p. 339Google Scholar.

8 Agamben, Giorgio, The Open: Man and Animal, trans. Attell, Kevin (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

9 Linklater, Andrew, The Transformation of Political Community (Oxford: Polity, 1998)Google Scholar.

10 These arguments are developed more comprehensively in Cudworth, Erika and Hobden, Stephen, Posthuman International Relations: Complexity, Ecologism and World Politics (London: Zed, 2011)Google Scholar.

11 Buzan, Barry and Little, Richard, ‘Why International Relations has Failed as an Intellectual Project and What to do About it’, Millennium, 30:1 (2001), p. 19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 For an excellent discussion of complexity theory within International Relations see Kavalski, Emilian, ‘The Fifth Debate and the Emergence of Complex International Relations Theory: Notes on the Application of Complexity Theory to the Study of International Life’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 20:3 (2007), pp. 435–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar. We elaborate some complexity concepts related to international relations in Cudworth and Hobden, Posthuman International Relations, pp. 63–81.

13 We have argued elsewhere that there are at least four different ways in which complexity ideas have been adopted in the social sciences. See Cudworth, Erika and Hobden, Stephen, ‘More than a Metaphor? Complexity in the Social Sciences’, International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 4:4 (1999), pp. 59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 See, for example, Urry, John, Global Complexity (Oxford: Polity, 2003)Google Scholar.

15 This is primarily associated with the work of network analysts. See Watts, Duncan, Small Worlds: The Dynamics of Networks Between Order and Randomness (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

16 Morin, Edgar, ‘Restricted Complexity, General Complexity’, in Gershenson, Carlos, Aerts, Diederik, and Edmonds, Bruce (eds), Worldviews, Science and Us: Philosophy and Complexity (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2007), p. 10Google Scholar.

17 The classic statement on consilience is Wilson, Edward O., Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (London: Abacus, 1999)Google Scholar. Also see Capra, Frijtof, The Hidden Connections: A Science for Sustainable Living (London: Harper Collins, 2002)Google Scholar.

18 The differences between the Waltzian conception of system and complexity approaches is discussed in Cudworth and Hobden, Posthuman International Relations, ch. 3. For a more general discussion of the distinction between ‘Newtonian’ and complex systems, see Ulanowicz, Robert, ‘Ecology: A Dialogue between the Quick and the Dead’, Emergence, 4:1/2 (2002), pp. 34–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Waltz, Kenneth N., Theory of International Politics (New York: Random House, 1979), pp. 134–8Google Scholar.

20 Levy, Jack S., ‘Domestic Politics and War’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18:4 (1988), p. 662CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Gulbenkian Commission, Open the Social Sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996), p. 61Google Scholar.

22 Autopoiesis refers to the self-organising propensities of complex systems. Walby, for example, states that in complex systems this ‘process of self-reproduction of a system is self-organizing and self-defining. The system has internal processes that internally connect and reproduce the system.’ See Walby, , Globalization and Inequalities: Complexity and Contested Modernities (London: Sage, 2009), p. 51Google Scholar.

23 A traditional form for the analysis of social inequality would be class relations.

24 Sylvia Walby, Globalization and Inequalities, pp. 2–3.

25 See, for example Yuva-Davis, Nira ‘Intersectionality and Feminist Politics’, European Journal of Women's Studies, 13:3 (2006), pp. 193–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 The term ‘fitness landscape’ is taken from biology, and in particular the work of Stuart Kauffman. See, in particular, Kauffman, Stuart, The Origins of Order: Self Organization and Selection in Evolution (Oxford University Press, 1993)Google Scholar. While there are justifiable concerns in importing such an analysis from biology to the study of the social world, it has been applied to the study of a variety of human social world situations. See, for example, Fleming, Lee and Sorenson, Olav, ‘Technology as a Complex Adaptive System: Evidence from Patent Data’, Research Policy, 30:7 (2001), pp. 1019–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stacey, Ralph, Complexity and Creativity in Organizations (San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler, 1996)Google Scholar.

27 An example of this is the discussion of the global food supply in XXXX (Reference omitted for anonymity).

28 This useful distinction is made by López, José and Scott, John, Social Structure (Buckingham: Open University Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

29 Gunderson, Lance H. and Holling, C. S. (eds), Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

30 Holling, C. S., Gunderson, Lance H. and Peterson, Garry D., ‘Sustainability and Panarchies’, in Gunderson, Lance H. and Holling, C. S. (eds), Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2002), pp. 72–4Google Scholar.

31 Holling, Gunderson, and Peterson, ‘Sustainability and Panarchies’, pp. 85–7.

32 Ibid., p. 88.

33 For example, economic exploitation, changes in population levels, increased literacy rates.

34 Holling, C. S., Carpenter, Stephen R., Brock, William A., and Gunderson, Lance H., ‘Discoveries for Sustainable Futures’, in Gunderson, Lance H. and Holling, C. S. (eds), Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2002), p. 411Google Scholar.

35 Scheffer, Marten, Westley, Frances, Brock, William A., and Holmgren, Milena, ‘Dynamic Interaction of Societies Ecosystems: Linking Theories from Ecology, Ecology and Sociology’, in Gunderson, Lance H. and Holling, C. S. (eds), Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2002), p. 210Google Scholar.

36 Westley, Frances, Carpenter, Stephen R., Brock, William A., Holling, C. S., and Gunderson, Lance H., ‘Why Systems of People and Nature are not Just Social and Ecological Systems’, in Gunderson, Lance H. and Holling, C. S. (eds), Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2002), pp. 108–9Google Scholar.

37 See for example, Southwick, Charles H., Global Ecology in Human Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)Google Scholar. The edition of the current issue of the journal Global Ecology and Biogeography (21:2) illustrates this point well, with articles focused, for example, on the negative impact of human social life on lizards, spiders, and amphibians. Whilst this is the general tendency, there is some work by human geographers which links global ecology to social inequality and politics structures, see de Campos Mello, Valerie, ‘Mainstreaming the Environment: Global Ecology, International Institutions and the Crisis of global Governance’, Human Ecology Review, 7:1 (2000), pp. 31–45Google Scholar.

38 Badmington, Alien Chic.

39 Gane, Nicholas, ‘When We Have Never Been Human, What is to be Done? An Interview with Donna J. Haraway’, Theory, Culture and Society, 23:7–8 (2006), p. 140CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 The problematising of the category ‘animal’ is often associated with the late work of Derrida, Jaques, The Animal That Therefore I Am, ed. Mallet, Marie-Louise, trans. Wills, David (New York: Fordham University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; whilst the difficulties with anthropomorphising non-human animals is illustrated well by Haraway, Donna J., Primate Visions: Gender, Race and Nature in the World of Modern Science (London: Routledge, 1989)Google Scholar.

41 Recent comments in Britain about a ‘feral underclass’ being a case in point. Ken Clark, ‘Punish the Feral Rioters, but Address our Social Deficit too’, The Guardian (5 September 2011), p. 34. For a detailed discussion of constructions of humanity see Bourke, Joanna, What it Means to be Human: Reflections from 1791 to the Present (London: Virago, 2011)Google Scholar; for a link between this and posthuman perspectives, see Wolfe, What is Posthumanism? The animalisation of humans is a theme in feminist and postcolonial literatures, see for example Plumwood, Val, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature (London: Routledge, 1993)Google Scholar.

42 Bostrom, Nick, ‘Human Genetic Enhancement: A Transhuman Perspective’, Journal of Value Inquiry, 37:4 (2003), pp. 493–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Wolfe, What is Posthumanism?, p. xv.

44 Lovelock, James, Ages of Gaia: A Biography of our Living Earth (2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

45 As is somewhat dramatically argued in Lovelock, James, The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning (London: Allen Lane, 2009)Google Scholar.

46 See Capra, Fritjof, The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter (New York: Harper Collins, 1996)Google Scholar; The Hidden Connections.

47 Dalby, Simon, Security and Environmental Change (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2009), pp. 11–12Google Scholar; Crutzen, Paul and Stoermer, Eugene, ‘The “Anthropocene”’, Global Change Newsletter, 41 (2000), pp. 12–13Google Scholar.

48 See, for example Acampora, Ralph R., Corporeal Compassion: Animal Ethics and Philosophy of Body (Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Wolfe, Cary, Animal Rites: American Culture, the Discourse of Species and Posthumanist Theory (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 2003)Google Scholar.

49 Latour, We Have Never Been Modern.

50 Bennett, Jane, Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010)Google Scholar.

51 See Capra, The Web of Life. Maturana, Humberto and Varela, Francisco argue for a dispersed notion of cognition, see for example, Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living (Kulwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding (Boston, MA: Shambhala, 1987).

52 See Naess, Arne, ‘The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement: A Summary’, Inquiry, 16:1 (1973), pp. 95–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eckersley, Robyn, Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Ecocentric Approach (London: University College London Press, 1992)Google Scholar.

53 Faisa, Aldoet al., ‘The Manipulative Complexity of Lower Paleolithic Stone Toolmaking’, PLoS ONE 5(11): e13718CrossRefGoogle Scholar, available at: {http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013718}.

54 Bennett, Vibrant Matter, p. 13.

55 Deleuze, Giles and Guattari, Félix, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. Massumi, Brian (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1987)Google Scholar. The idea of assemblages has also been developed by DeLanda, Manuel. See his A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity (London: Continuum, 2006)Google Scholar.

56 Cudworth and Hobden ‘Beyond Environmental Security’.

57 Kuehls, Thom, Beyond Sovereign Territory: The Space of Ecopolitics (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

58 Stengers, Isabelle, ‘Including Nonhumans in Political Theory: Opening Pandora's Box?’, in Braun, Bruce and Whatmore, Sarah J. (eds), Political Matter: Technoscience, Democracy and Public Life (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), p. 7Google Scholar.

59 In particular Habermas, Jürgen. See his ‘Three Normative Models of Democracy’, in Behabib, Seyla (ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), pp. 21–30Google Scholar. More specifically from an International Relations perspective the work of Andrew Linklater, has been influenced by Habermas' work. See, for example, The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Order (Oxford: Polity, 1998); ‘Dialogic Politics and the Civilising Process’, Review of International Studies, 31:1 (2005), pp. 141–54.

60 See, for example, Rose, Nikolas, Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Theory (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dobson, Andrew and Bell, Derek, ‘Introduction’ in Dobson, Andrew and Bell, Derek (eds), Environmental Citizenship (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), pp. 1–20Google Scholar.

61 Dobson, Andrew and Eckersley, Robyn (eds), Political Theory and the Ecological Challenge (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Bennett, Jane, ‘The Force of Things: Steps toward an Ecology of Matter’, Political Theory, 32:3 (2004), pp. 347–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Bennett draws on Latour's notion of an ‘actant’, which can be a human or non-human source of action. See Latour, Bruno, The Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy, trans. Porter, Catherine (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), p. 75Google Scholar.

63 Bennett, Vibrant Matter, p. 9.

64 See, in particular, Bennett, Vibrant Matter, pp. 24–8.

65 Archer, Margaret S., Being Human: the Problem of Agency (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 261CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Irvine, Sandy, If You Tame Me: Understanding our Connections with Animals (Philadelphia PA: Temple University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

67 Carter, Bob and Charles, Nickie, ‘Human-animal Connections: An Introduction’, in Carter, Bob and Charles, Nickie (eds), Human and Other Animals: Critical Perspectives (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2011), pp. 1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 Carter and Charles, ‘Human-animal connections’, p. 11.

69 There is a parallel here with the argument that the self-organising properties of intra human systems outstrip those of natural systems. See Frances Westley et al. ‘Why systems’, pp. 104–5.

70 We are aware that this is a most controversial point, and the problem of the ‘catch-all’ concept ‘animal’ makes itself felt. However whilst Carter and Charles are right to emphasise the importance of speech in articulating human social power, it is important to acknowledge that some other species have sophisticated means of communication, and exhibit culture (evidenced in shared symbolic meaning, ritual and practices and socialisation of diversity in cultural patterns). See Bekoff, Marc's work on ‘listening’ to and ‘hearing’ a variety of non-human animals and the problems of representing them, Minding Animals: Awareness, Emotions and Heart (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

71 Bennett, Vibrant Matter, p. 12.

72 Bennett, Vibrant Matter, pp. 36–7.

73 Latour, Bruno, ‘From Real Politik to Dingpolitik: or How to Make Things Public’, in Latour, Bruno and Weibel, Peter (eds), Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005), p. 15Google Scholar.

74 Latour, The Politics of Nature, p. 148.

75 Stengers, Isabelle, The Invention of Modern Science, trans. Smith, Daniel W. (Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), p. 84Google Scholar.

76 Latour, The Politics of Nature, p. 148.

77 Brassett, James and Smith, William, ‘Deliberation and Global Civil Society: Agency, Arena, Affect’, Review of International Studies, 36:2 (2010), pp. 413–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Bohman, James, Democracy Across Borders: From Demos to Demoi (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

79 Dryzek, John S., Deliberative Global Politics: Discourse and Democracy in a Divided World (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

80 Brassett and Smith, ‘Deliberation and Global Civil Society’, pp. 425–30.

81 See Luke, Timothy W., Capitalism, Democracy and Ecology: Departing from Marx (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

82 Lövbrand, Eva and Stripple, Johannes, ‘The Climate as a Political Space’, Review of International Studies, 32:2 (2006), pp. 234–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83 Liz Ford, ‘Rio+20 politicians deliver “new definition of hypocrisy” claim NGOs’, Guardian (21 June 2012), available at: {http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/jun/21/rio20-politicians-hypocrisy-ngos?intcmp=239}.

84 Mitchell, Sandra, Unsimple Truths: Science, Complexity and Policy (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2009), p. 90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

85 Robert Axelrod and Michael Cohen suggest three main inter-linked ways in which advantage can be taken of complexity. First, building variation into policy options increases the number of options that can be explored, and allows more successful options to be pursued, when certain possibilities fail. Second, the effectiveness and robustness of a system can be increased by promoting interaction amongst its units, and thereby enhancing variety and increasing the options to deal with uncertain circumstances, and interaction by building links within and across systems. The third element, is building the capacity to select the most appropriate options. Axelrod, Robert M. and Cohen, Michael D., Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier (New York: Free Press, 1999), pp. 155–8Google Scholar.

86 Sterman, John D., ‘All Models Are Wrong: Reflections on Becoming a Systems Scientist’, System Dynamics Review, 18:4 (2002), p. 504CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 Morin, Edgar, On Complexity (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2008), p. 96Google Scholar.

88 Ibid., p. 96.

89 Ibid., p. 97.

90 This is left unresolved here, the focus of our argument is the need for the reinvention of political organisation and practices. The specific kinds of reinvention are the focus of our current work.

91 Lumann, Niklas, Social Systems (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995)Google Scholar. Luhmann would object to our argument that a normative position is required, and would see his systems theory as non-normative. Yet Luhmann's use of complexity is embedded in Parsonian functionalism. The multiple and varied uses of complexity frameworks by different kinds of theory (Marxism, postmodernism, ecologism, and so on) suggest that despite Lumann's objections, complexity alone will not suffice. Luhmann's work on systems and complexity theory has been drawn upon within International Relations. See Albert, Mathias and Hilkermeier, Lena (eds), Observing International Relations: Niklas Luhmann and World Politics (London: Routledge, 2004)Google Scholar.

92 Naess, Arne, Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93 Eckersley, Environmentalism and Political Theory, p. 49.

94 Capra, The Hidden Connections.

95 Eckersley, Robyn, ‘The Discourse Ethic and the Problem of Representing Nature’, Environmental Politics, 8:2 (1999), p. 38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 Bookchin's point is that complexity approaches fail to catch the ‘indeterminacy’ of the social world. Bookchin, , The Philosophy of Social Ecology (Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1990), p. 151Google Scholar. While we would accept that the social world is different, it is the capacity of complexity theory to provide us with the tools to understand that indeterminacy that makes it significant.

97 van Duyn, Roel, Message of a Wise Kabouter (London: Duckworth, 1969), p. 21Google Scholar.

98 See, for example, Margulis, Lynn and Sagan, Dorion, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species (New York: Basic Books, 2002)Google Scholar; also Gilbert, Scott F., ‘The Genome in its Ecological Context: Philosophical Perspectives on Interspecies Epigenesis’, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 981:1 (2002), pp. 202–18CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

99 Bookchin, Murray, The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy (Edinburgh: AK Press, 2005), pp. 191–200Google Scholar.

100 Dickens, Peter, Reconstructing Nature: Alienation, Emancipation and the Division of Labour (London: Routledge, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

101 See Guha, Ramachandra, The Ramachandra Guha Omnibus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Shiva, Vandana, Soil not Oil: Climate Change, Peak Oil and Food Insecurity (London: Zed, 2008)Google Scholar.

102 Harvey, David, Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), p. 187Google Scholar.

103 Castree, Noel, ‘Marxism, Capitalism and the Production of Nature’, in Castree, Noel and Braun, Bruce (eds), Social Nature: Theory, Practice and Politics (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), p. 191Google Scholar.

104 Harvey, Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference, p. 187.

105 See the discussion of ‘anti-man’ stances in Pepper, David, Eco-Socialism: From Deep Ecology to Social Justice (London: Routledge, 1993), p. 148CrossRefGoogle Scholar. By contrast ‘essentialist eco-feminism’ suggests that ‘poor women [are] intrinsically closer to nature’. Martinez-Alier, Juan, ‘From Political Economy to Political Ecology’, in Guha, Ramachandra and Martinez-Alier, Juan (eds), Varieties of environmentalism: Essays North and South (London: Earthscan, 1997), p. 36Google Scholar.

106 The following provide good examples: Mellor, MaryBreaking the Boundaries: Towards a Feminist Green Socialism (London: Virago, 1992)Google Scholar; Mies, MariaPatriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale (London: Zed Books, 1986)Google Scholar; Plumwood, ValFeminism and the Mastery of Nature (London: Routledge, 1993)Google Scholar.

107 Salleh, Ariel, ‘Ecological Debt: Embodied Debt’, in Salleh, Ariel (ed.), Eco-Sufficiency and Global Justice: Women Write Political Ecology (London: Pluto Press, 2009), pp. 3–5Google Scholar.

108 See Cudworth, Erika, Developing Ecofeminist Theory: The Complexity of Difference (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

109 Or, for Bruno Latour, ‘earthlings’. See, Latour, Bruno, ‘A Plea for Earthly Sciences’, in Burnett, Judith, Jeffers, Syd, and Thomas, Graham (eds), New Social Connections: Sociology's Subjects and Objects (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2009), p. 75Google Scholar.

110 Lövbrand and Stripple ‘The Climate’, p. 218.

111 Stengers, Isabella, Cosmopolitics I, trans. Bononno, Robert (Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota University Press, 2010)Google Scholar.

112 Morin, On Complexity.

113 Kuehls, Beyond Sovereign Territory.

114 The case that different perspectives require a different view of what are the subjects, objects and processes of international politics has been well established by feminist interventions. See, for example, Sylvester, Christine, ‘Woe or Whoa! International Relations where it's not supposed to be’, Brown Journal of World Affairs, 10:2 (2004), pp. 57–68Google Scholar.