黑色视界:人类世的另类与本体论

IF 1.7 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Farai Chipato, David Chandler
{"title":"黑色视界:人类世的另类与本体论","authors":"Farai Chipato, David Chandler","doi":"10.1080/13600826.2022.2110041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper makes the case for an approach to International Relations in the Anthropocene, which draws upon resources from critical Black studies. This distinctive perspective is set out in comparison to two, more familiar, sets of critical Anthropocene thought, that have been influential in contemporary discussions of global politics. We heuristically frame these as the “Planetary” - a focus on ontology and vibrant and unruly materiality – and the “Pluriversal” - which places race and coloniality at the centre of our understanding of power and knowledge. We suggest that Planetary approaches underestimate the centrality of race and coloniality to questions of ontology and that Pluriversal approaches are often undermined by a failure to take ontology more seriously. These literatures are opposed to a third perspective, which we call the “Black Horizon”, which troubles our approach to alterity and works with a non- or para-ontological understanding of being.","PeriodicalId":46197,"journal":{"name":"Global Society","volume":"37 1","pages":"157 - 175"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Black Horizon: Alterity and Ontology in the Anthropocene\",\"authors\":\"Farai Chipato, David Chandler\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13600826.2022.2110041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This paper makes the case for an approach to International Relations in the Anthropocene, which draws upon resources from critical Black studies. This distinctive perspective is set out in comparison to two, more familiar, sets of critical Anthropocene thought, that have been influential in contemporary discussions of global politics. We heuristically frame these as the “Planetary” - a focus on ontology and vibrant and unruly materiality – and the “Pluriversal” - which places race and coloniality at the centre of our understanding of power and knowledge. We suggest that Planetary approaches underestimate the centrality of race and coloniality to questions of ontology and that Pluriversal approaches are often undermined by a failure to take ontology more seriously. These literatures are opposed to a third perspective, which we call the “Black Horizon”, which troubles our approach to alterity and works with a non- or para-ontological understanding of being.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46197,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Society\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"157 - 175\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2022.2110041\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2022.2110041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文从批判性的黑人研究中汲取资源,提出了一种研究人类世国际关系的方法。这一独特的观点与两种更熟悉的批判性人类世思想进行了比较,这两种思想在当代全球政治的讨论中产生了影响。我们启发式地将这些定义为“行星”——关注本体论和充满活力和不受约束的物质性——和“多元”——将种族和殖民置于我们对权力和知识的理解的中心。我们认为,行星方法低估了种族和殖民地对本体论问题的中心地位,而多元方法往往因未能更认真地对待本体论而受到破坏。这些文献反对第三种观点,我们称之为“黑地平线”,它困扰着我们对另类的理解,并与对存在的非或准本体论理解一起工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Black Horizon: Alterity and Ontology in the Anthropocene
ABSTRACT This paper makes the case for an approach to International Relations in the Anthropocene, which draws upon resources from critical Black studies. This distinctive perspective is set out in comparison to two, more familiar, sets of critical Anthropocene thought, that have been influential in contemporary discussions of global politics. We heuristically frame these as the “Planetary” - a focus on ontology and vibrant and unruly materiality – and the “Pluriversal” - which places race and coloniality at the centre of our understanding of power and knowledge. We suggest that Planetary approaches underestimate the centrality of race and coloniality to questions of ontology and that Pluriversal approaches are often undermined by a failure to take ontology more seriously. These literatures are opposed to a third perspective, which we call the “Black Horizon”, which troubles our approach to alterity and works with a non- or para-ontological understanding of being.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Global Society
Global Society INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Global Society covers the new agenda in global and international relations and encourages innovative approaches to the study of global and international issues from a range of disciplines. It promotes the analysis of transactions at multiple levels, and in particular, the way in which these transactions blur the distinction between the sub-national, national, transnational, international and global levels. An ever integrating global society raises a number of issues for global and international relations which do not fit comfortably within established "Paradigms" Among these are the international and global consequences of nationalism and struggles for identity, migration, racism, religious fundamentalism, terrorism and criminal activities.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信