|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
193307
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Rats tend to thrive wherever humans do. In recent centuries, the growth of human populations around the planet has meant the growth of a nearly equivalent global population of rats, particularly in cities, where they thrive on trash, food scraps, and infrastructure, and widely stymie human efforts to get rid of them. This forced coexistence has inspired a wide range of human responses, ranging from revulsion and extermination efforts as vermin, to religious veneration and use as experimental lab animals. At the same time, the political figure of the rat has played a constitutive role in violence and experimentation against human populations who are deemed as rat-like. To understand these linked dynamics, the article frames the idea of interspecies internationality, against both Anthropocene and geopolitical readings of the planetary condition. It then elaborates three axes around which rat assemblages have been formed – exterminative, experimental, and ecological. The article concludes by arguing that the rat, as interspecies figure of politics and as living creature, allows us to understand important dynamics around the generation of disposable life, political difference, and conditions of coexistence, in ways that are critical to the entwined politics of life on the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
134729
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
International politics is widely assumed to be an exclusively human activity. This article argues that rethinking this assumption is necessary in order to find a practical and ethically appropriate relationship with nature and nonhuman animals, and in order to call into question the violent logics that underpin the category of the human in existing international politics. The article inquires into the ways that anthropocentrism structures thinking about contemporary international politics, focusing in particular on how the ‘language objection’ works. It concludes that we might turn instead towards an interspecies conception of politics, one that does not stop at the boundary of a human that we were never able to fully pinpoint in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
152729
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article evaluates the emergence of rights for nature in global politics, focusing particularly on questions surrounding the politics and ontology of collective personhood in Ecuador and New Zealand. Rather than assuming international space to be largely populated by state persons who in turn grant personhood to nature, these cases suggest that it is more productive to start by asking what kinds of collective persons populate world spaces, and in what ways they are made political. Augmenting conceptions of Westphalian personification rooted largely in human symbolic practices, the article advocates for an understanding of persons as figures that are sometimes produced by relations between human and nonhuman actors. It then suggests that the rights of nature are, paradoxically, not a politics over whether a singular nature should be a rights holder but, rather, are partial challenges to the universality of secular law and the sovereign state. As such, they raise important questions about the politics of translation and the commensurability of multiple conceptions of collective personhood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|