Complexity, ecologism, and posthuman politics

Cudworth, Erika; Hobden, Stephen

doi:10.1017/s0260210512000290

Cited by 49 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While complexity thinking does not necessarily escape from anthropocentrism, our position is that, given the analysis of embedded and overlapping systems, it implies and allows for, the development of non-anthropocentrism (Cudworth & Hobden, 2013a). Hegel's analysis of dialectics was clearly human-centred, and focused, as we saw earlier, on the development of human consciousness.…”

Section: Points Of Contentionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Analysing Change: Complex Rather than Dialectical?

Cudworth

Hobden

2014

Globalizations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article offers a discussion of dialectics from a complexity perspective. Dialectics is a term much utilized but infrequently defined. This article suggests that a spectrum of ideas exist concerning understandings of dialectics. We are particularly critical of Hegelian dialectics which we see as anthropocentric and teleological.While Marxist approaches to dialectics, in the form of historical materialism, marked a break from the idealist elements of Hegelian dialectics they retained traces of this approach. The article offers a partial discussion of essential elements of dialectics, which we consider to be the analysis of change, the centrality of contradiction and the methodology of abstraction. Points of overlap with complexity thinking are highlighted together with those points where complexity thinking and dialectical approaches diverge. We conclude with some suggestions of how complexity thinking might contribute to a development of dialectical approaches.2

show abstract

Section: Points Of Contentionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Analysing Change: Complex Rather than Dialectical?

Cudworth

Hobden

2014

Globalizations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, while sympathetic to the normative position of Cudworth and Hobden (2013), I would suggest that their concerns about securitization are directed at a particular (albeit dominant) discourse of environmental or climate security. If alternative discourses come to define responses to climate changediscourses consistent with cosmopolitan principles, ecosystem resilience and/or the rights and needs of vulnerable beingsthen we should expect different and often more progressive practices to follow.…”

Section: Why Security?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change and security: towards ecological security?

McDonald

2018

Int. Theory

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change is increasingly characterized as a security issue. Yet we see nothing approaching consensus about the nature of the climate change–security relationship. Indeed existing depictions in policy statements and academic debate illustrate radically different conceptions of the nature of the threat posed, to whom and what constitute appropriate policy responses. These different climate securitydiscoursesencourage practices as varied as national adaptation and globally oriented mitigation action. Given the increasing prominence of climate security representations and the different implications of these discourses, it is important to consider whether we can identifyprogressivediscourses of climate security: approaches to this relationship underpinned by defensible ethical assumptions and encouraging effective responses to climate change. Here I make a case for an ecological security discourse. Such a discourse orients towards ecosystem resilience and the rights and needs of the most vulnerable across space (populations of developing worlds), time (future generations), and species (other living beings). This paper points to the limits of existing accounts of climate security before outlining the contours of an ‘ecological security discourse’ regarding climate change. It concludes by reflecting on the challenges and opportunities for such discourse in genuinely informing how political communities approach the climate change–security relationship.

show abstract

“…Conventional approaches to international relations do not offer any place, role or ethical status accorded to ‘non-humans’ (Coward, 2009; Cudworth & Hobden, 2013). What stands as the main impediment to recognising this constitutive role is the dominance of anthropocentrism in mainstream political thinking.…”

Section: Securitisation Of Dead Bodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emerging Discourses on Security—From ‘Traditional’ to ‘Worldly’ and Beyond: An Innovative Indian Perspective

Gaan

2018

Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the traditional conceptualisation of security, human beings remain predominantly at the centre stage claiming all privileges of military apparatus of the state by virtue of being 'superior' to all other living forms. Realist and neo-realist conceptualisations of the state see human kind as the sole reference point and subject of security. It is argued that the security of the state impregnates the individuals against all kinds of threats from the outside 'other'. With the emergence of non-traditional security paradigms and the broadening of the ambit of security to bring human beings directly to the mainstream, and include non-human material beings, the new materialism and worldly approaches obtain a different kind of prominence in the canon of security analysis. In this new approach, we can find the conceptualisation of 'being together' of human beings, other non-human living forms and the non-living material world being part of one whole world. This so-called 'worldly approach', articulates and emphasizes the realisation and feeling of human beings for the 'other', but falls short of suggesting any means by which human beings could expand themselves to include all-living and non-living forms to create new security models. This article analyses the relevance and applicability of ancient Indian wisdom substantiated by modern science to the analysis of state security.

show abstract

Complexity, ecologism, and posthuman politics

Cited by 49 publications

References 43 publications

Analysing Change: Complex Rather than Dialectical?

Analysing Change: Complex Rather than Dialectical?

Climate change and security: towards ecological security?

Emerging Discourses on Security—From ‘Traditional’ to ‘Worldly’ and Beyond: An Innovative Indian Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About