Rethinking the Limits of the Concept of Agency in the International Relations Discipline: The Case of the Climate Justice Movement

Year 2022, Volume: 31 Issue: 2, 385 - 402, 08.11.2022

Özgür Aktaş

https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1066830

Abstract

For a long period of time, in the International Relations discipline, the concept of agency has been discussed within the scope of certain theoretical premises, and the question of what might be considered an agent has been neglected. However, the distinctive issues and dynamics of the 21st century necessitate to reconsider these premises. The article discusses the agency of the Climate Justice Movement on critical realist ground with a poststructuralist intervention. It suggests that the level of analysis and the agent – structure relations should be considered in tandem to grasp the Movement’s agency. It claims that for decentralized agents, the lack of a decision-making mechanism might be the very reason for the agency of the political entity. The article is organized into four main parts. Firstly, the particular features of the Climate Justice Movement will be examined. Secondly, a hypothetical mechanism regarding the agency of the Movement will be retroduced. Retroduction is a mode of inference that is widely used by critical realists as a means of scrutinizing unobservable mechanisms. Thirdly, based on the agency debate in International Relations, various approaches will be analyzed to explain the Movement’s agency. Lastly, the retroduced hypothetical mechanism will be scrutinized within the context of level of analysis, structure and agency.

Keywords

Climate Justice Movement, Agency, International Relations Theory, Critical Realism, Poststructuralism

Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplininde Aktör Kavramının Sınırlarını Yeniden Düşünmek: İklim Adaleti Hareketi Örneği

Abstract

Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplininde uzun yıllar boyunca aktör kavramı belli teorik kabuller çerçevesinde ele alınsa da hangi siyasi unsurların aktör olarak nitelendirilebileceği konusu göz ardı edilmiştir. Fakat 21. yüzyılın kendisine has sorunları ve dinamikleri aktörlüğe dair söz konusu kabulleri yeniden değerlendirmeyi gerekli kılmaktadır. Bu çalışma, İklim Adaleti Hareketi’nin aktörlüğünü eleştirel gerçekçi bir zeminde postyapısalcı bir müdahale ile ele almaktadır. Bunun yanı sıra, merkezi olmayan (decentralized) aktörler için karar alma mekanizmasının noksanlığının söz konusu siyasi unsurların aktörlüğünün temel sebebi olabileceğini iddia eder. Çalışma dört temel bölüme ayrılmıştır. Öncelikle İklim Adaleti Hareketinin özgün nitelikleri incelenecektir. Ardından geridönüm (retroduction) metoduyla Hareket’in aktörlüğüne ilişkin bir varsayımsal mekanizma öne sürülecektir. Sonrasında Uluslararası İlişkiler’de aktörlük tartışması temel alınarak Hareket’in aktörlüğü irdelenecektir. Son olarak, öne sürülen varsayımsal mekanizma analiz düzeyi ve aktör-yapı sorunsalı çerçevesinde değerlendirilecektir. 

Keywords

İklim Adaleti Hareketi, Aktörlük, Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorisi, Eleştirel Gerçekçilik, Postyapısalcılık.

References

• Abrahamsson, S., & Dányi, E. (2018). Becoming stronger by becoming weaker: The hunger strike as a mode of doing politics. Journal of International Relations and Development, 22(4), 882–898.
• Adler, E., & Pouliot, V. (2011). International practices. International Theory 3(1), 1–36.
• Archer, M. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Arı T. & Gökpınar F. B. (2020). Climate-Migration: A security analysis within the context of green theory. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 17(68), 41-53.
• Ashley, Richard K. (1984). The poverty of neorealism. International Organization 38(2), 225-286.
• Auer, M. R. (2000). Who participates in global environmental governance? Partial answers from international relations theory. Policy Sciences 33(2), 155–80.
• Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg A. (2014). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Bhaskar, R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. Brighton: Harvester Press.
• Bhaskar, R. (2008)[1986]. Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. London: Routledge.
• Bhaskar, R. (2009). Scientific realism and human emancipation. London: Routledge.
• Bhaskar, R. (2013)[1975]. A realist theory of science. London: Routledge.
• Bhaskar, R. (2016). Enlightened common sense: The philosophy of critical realism. Routledge.
• Bhaskar, R. & Danermark B. (2006). Metatheory, interdisciplinarity and disability research: a critical realist perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 8(4), 278-297.
• Bhaskar, R., Cheryl F., Parker J., Høyer, K. G. (2010). Interdisciplinarity and Climate Change: Transforming Knowledge and Practice for Our Global Future. Taylor & Francis.
• Bir, B. (2020). Global Climate Strikes, Environmental Protests in 2020. Anadolu Ajansı. Retrieved from https://www.aa.com.tr/en/environment/global-climate-strikes-environmental-protests-in-2020/2082982.
• Brototi, R., & Martinez-Alier J. (2019). Environmental justice movements in India: an analysis of the multiple manifestations of violence. Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 2(1), 77-92.
• Brown, O. (2008). Migration and climate. Geneva: International Organization for Migration.
• Building Bridges Collective. (2010). Space for movement?: Reflections from Bolivia on climate justice, social movements and the state. Leeds: Footprint Workers Co-op.
• Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal 40(4), 519-531.
• Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of "sex". London: Routledge.
• Campbell, D. (1998). National deconstruction: Violence, identity, and justice in Bosnia. Minneapolis, Minn: University of Minnesota Press.
• Carlsnaes, W. (1992). The agency-structure problem in foreign policy analysis. International Studies Quarterly 36(3), 245-270.
• Corpwatch. (2020). Our History. Retrieved from https://corpwatch.org/node/4?id=11314.
• Dessler, D. (1989). What's at stake in the agent-structure debate? International Organization 43(3), 441–73.
• Doty, R. L. (1999). A reply to Colin Wight. European Journal of International Relations 5(3), 387–390.
• Doty, R. L. (1997). Aporia: a critical exploration of the agent-structure problematique in international relations theory. European Journal of International Relations 3(3), 365–92.
• Giacomini, T., & Turner, T. (2015). The 2014 people's climate march and flood wall street civil disobedience: making the transition to a post-fossil capitalist, commoning civilization. Capitalism Nature Socialism 26(2), 27–45.
• Giddens, A. (1997). New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative sociologies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Grygiel, J. J. (2018). Return of the barbarians: Confronting non-state actors from ancient Rome to the present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hartwig, M. (Ed.) (2015) Dictionary of Critical Realism. Routledge.
• Hu, X. (2018). Methodological implications of critical realism for entrepreneurship research. Journal of Critical Realism 17(2), 118-139.
• Kolasi, K. (2020). Postyapısalcılığın söylemsel ontolojisinin eleştirisi: uluslararası ilişkilerde söylem dışı alan ve eleştirel gerçekçilik. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 17(65), 83-100.
• Martiskainen, M., Axon, S., Sovacool, B.K., Sareen, S., Dylan F. D. R., Axon K. (2020). "Contextualizing climate justice activism: Knowledge, emotions, motivations, and actions among climate strikers in six cities." Global Environmental Change 65,102180.
• Mbow C., Pӧrtner, H.O., Reisinger A., Canadell J., O’Brien P. (2017). Special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems (SR2). Geneva: IPCC.
• Mingers, J, & Standing, C. (2017). Why things happen: Developing the critical realist view of causal mechanisms. Information and Organization 27(3), 171-189.
• Mohai, P., D., Pellow, J., Roberts, T. (2009) Environmental justice. Annual review of environment and resources 34 (2009), 405-430.
• Noyes, D. (2018) Blaming the polish plumber: Phantom agents, invisible workers, and the liberal arena. Journal of International Relations and Development 22(4), 853–81.
• Porpora, D.V. (1989). Four concepts of social structure . Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 19(2),195–211.
• Porpora, D.V. (2015). Reconstructing sociology: The critical realist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Princen, T., & Finger M. (1994). Environmental NGO's in World Politics: Linking the Local and the Global. London: Routledge.
• Reed, M. (2005). Reflections on the ‘realist turn’in organization and management studies. Journal of Management Studies 42(8), 1621-1644.
• Reitan, R, and Gibson S. (2012).Climate change or social change? environmental and leftist praxis and participatory action research. Globalizations 9(3), 395–410.
• Ringmar, E. (2019). The problem with performativity: comments on the contributions. Journal of International Relations and Development 22(4), 899-908.
• RisingUp. (2018). Extinction rebellion occupy greenpeace offices. Retrieved from https://risingup.org.uk/extinction-rebellion-occupy-greenpeace-offices.
• Sinn, H.W. (2012). The Green Paradox: A Supply-Side Approach to Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Tollefson, J. (2019). The hard truths of climate change- by the numbers. Nature. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-019-02711-4/index.html.
• Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Weber, C. (1998). Performative states. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 27(1), 77–95.
• Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International Organization 46(2), 391–425.
• Wendt, A. (1987). The agent-structure problem in international relations theory. International Organization 41(3), 335–70.
• Wendt, A. (2004). The state as person in international theory. Review of International Studies 30(2), 289–316.
• Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: University Press.
• Westra, L. (2013). Environmental justice and the rights of ecological refugees. London: Earthscan.
• Weyler, R. (2019) Extinction and rebellion. Greenpeace International. Retrieved from: https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/22058/extinction-and-rebellion/.
• Wight, C. (1999). They shoot dead horses don't they?: Location agency in Agent-structure problematique. European Journal of International Relations 5(1), 109–42.
• Wight, C. (2000). Interpretation all the way down?: A reply Roxanne Lynn Doty.” European Journal of International Relations 6(3),423–30.
• Wight, C. (2004). State agency: social action without human activity?. Review of International Studies 30(2), 269-280.
• Wight, C. (2006). Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wolfers, A. (1965). Discord and Collaboration: Essays on International Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
• Yalvaç, F. (2012). Uluslararası ilişkiler teorisindeki temel tartışmalar ve eleştirel gerçekçilik. In T. Arı (Ed.) Uluslararası İlişkilerde Postmodern Analizler, Bursa: MKM.
• Zibechi, R. (2010) Dispering power: social movements as anti-state forces. Edinburgh: AK Press.