Antroposen, Posthümanizm ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramının ‘Ekoloji’ Taahhüdünün Tarihsel Materyalist Eleştirisi

Year 2021, , 87 - 107, 26.10.2021

Yelda Erçandırlı

https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.912034

Cited By: 4

Abstract

Bu makale, Uluslararası İlişkiler (Uİ) kuramının gündemine giderek yerleşen Antroposen tartışmalarının eleştirel
analizine odaklanmakta ve Antroposen olarak tanımlanan çağda bir sosyal disiplin olarak Uİ’nin vaatlerini ve
sorunlarını incelemektedir. Bu tartışmaların odak noktasını insan/doğa ikiliğini aşma çabası oluşturmaktadır.
Posthümanistler, Antroposen çalışmalarını kavrama yüklenen anlamın insan-merkezciliği ve anaakım Uİ
çalışmalarını yeniden ürettiği gerekçesiyle reddetmektedirler. Bu çalışma, söz konusu tartışmanın odağının
insan-merkezcilik sorunsalından toplumun doğa ile değişen ilişkisine doğru evrilmesi gerektiğini savunmaktadır.
Ekolojik krizin ancak toplumsal yapılar ve bu yapıları ortaya çıkaran tarihsel-maddi ilişkiler çerçevesinde
düşünüldüğü zaman anlaşılabileceğini iddia etmektedir. Bu bakımdan makaledeki eleştiri ve yaklaşım, özellikle
sosyal bilimlerde toplum-doğa ilişkisine yönetilen tarihsel materyalist analiz ile örtüşmektedir.

Keywords

Kapitalosen, Ekolojik Kriz, İnsan-Merkezcilik, Toplum-Doğa İkiliği, Tarihsizlik

Anthropocene, Posthumanism and a Historical Materialist Critique of the ‘Ecological’ Promise of International Relations Theory

Abstract

This study focuses on a critical analysis of the Anthropocene narratives that are increasingly occupying the center
of the discussion in the International Relations (IR) theory and attempts to address the promises and problems
of the IR as a social discipline in the age defined as the Anthropocene. The main point of these studies constitutes
an effort to overcome the duality between human and nature. Posthumanists reject the Anthropocene studies on
the grounds that the meaning attributed to the concept reproduces anthropocentrism and mainstream IR studies.
The study argues that the focus of the discussions should be shifted from the problematic of anthropocentrism
to the changing relationship between society and nature. Accordingly, it claims that ecological crisis can only be
understood as it is considered within the framework of the social structures and historical material relations that
constitute these structures. In this respect, the criticism and approach in the study coincides with the historical
materialist analysis, directed especially onto the relationship between society and nature in the social sciences.

Keywords

Capitalocene, Ecological Crisis, Anthropocentrism, Society-Nature Duality, Ahistoricism

References

• Altvater, Elmar (2006). “The Social and Natural Environment of Fossil Capitalism”, Socialist Register 2007: Coming to Terms with Nature, Cilt 43, s. 37-59.
• Altvater, Elmar (2016). “The Capitalocene, or, Geoenginering Against Capitalism’s Planetary Boundaries”, Jason W. Moore (der.), Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, History and the Crisis of Capitalism. Oakland, PM Press, s. 138-153
• Baskin, Jeremy (2015). “Paradigm Dressed as Epoch: The Ideology of the Anthropocene” Environmental Values, Cilt 24, No 1, s. 9-29.
• Bhaskar, Roy ve Jenneth Parker (2010). “Introduction”, Roy Bhaskar et al. (der.), Interdisciplinarity and Climate Change: Transforming Knowledge and Practice for Our Global Future. Londra, Routledge, s. vii- xiii.
• Biermann, Frank (2014). Earth System Governance: World Politics in the Anthropocene. New York, The MIT Press.
• Biermann, Frank (2018). “Global Governance in the ‘Anthropocene’”, Chris Brown ve Robyn Eckersley (der.), The Oxford Handbook of International Political Theory. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Bonneuil, Christophe (2015). “The Geological Turn: Narratives of the Anthropocene”, Clive Hamilton et al. (der.), The Anthropocene and the Global Environmental Crisis: Rethinking Modernity in a New Epoch. Londra, Routledge, s. 15-31.
• Bousquets, Antoine (2015). “Prologomena to Postanthropocentric International Relations: Biosphere and Technosphere in the Age of Global Complexity” Emilian Kavalski (der.), World Politics at the Edge of Chaos: Reflections on Complexity and Global Life. New York, State University of New York Press, s. 189-208.
• Burke, Anthony et al. (2016). “Planet Politics: A Manifesto from the End of IR”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Cilt 44, No 3, s. 499-523.
• Burkett, Paul (2004). Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective. Chicago, Haymarket Books. Castree, Noel et al. (2014). “Changing the Intellectual Climate” Nature Climate Change, Cilt 4, No 9, s. 763-768.
• Chandler, David (2015). “A World without Causation: Big Data and the Coming of Age of Posthumanism”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Cilt 43, No 3, s. 833-851.
• Chandler, David (2019). “The Transvaluation of Critique in the Anthropocene”, Global Society, Cilt 33, No 1, s. 26-44.
• Chandler, David et al. (2018). “Anthropocene, Capitalocene and Liberal Cosmopolitan IR: A Response to Burke et al.’s ‘Planet Politics’”, Millennium: Journal of International Politics, Cilt 46, No 2, 2018, s. 190-208.
• Choat, Simon (2018). “Science, Agency and Ontology: A Historical- Materialist Response to New Materialism” Political Studies, Cilt 66, No 4, s. 1027-1042.
• Cotter, Jennifer (2016). “New Materialism and the Labor Theory of Value”, Minnesota Review, No 87, s. 171-181.
• Crutzen, Paul J. ve Eugene F. Stoermer (2000). “The ‘Anthropocene’”, Global Change Newsletter, No 41, 2000, s. 17–18
• Crutzen, Paul J. ve Will Steffen (2003). “How Long Have We Been in the Anthropocene Era?” Climatic Change, No 61, s. 251–257
• Cudworth, Erika ve Stephen Hobden (2011). Posthuman International Relations: Complexity, Ecologism and Global Politics. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
• Cudworth, Erika ve Stephen Hobden (2013). “Of Parts and Wholes: International Relations and beyond Human”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Cilt 41, No 3, s. 430-450.
• Cudworth, Erika ve Stephen Hobden (2015). “Liberation for Straw Dogs? Old Materialism, New Materialism, and the Challenge of an Emancipatory Posthumanism”, Globalizations, Cilt 12, No 1, s. 134-148.
• Cudworth, Erika ve Stephen Hobden (2018). The Emancipatory Project of Posthumanism. Londra, Routledge.
• Cudwoth, Erika ve Stephen Hobden (2014). “Analysing Change: Complex Rather than Dialectical?”, Globalizations, Cilt 11, No 5, s. 627-642.
• Dalby, Simon (2014). “Rethinking Geopolitics: Climate Security in the Anthropocene”, Global Policy, Cilt 5, No 1, s. 1-9.
• Dalby, Simon (2018). “Firepower: Geopolitical Cultures in the Anthropocene”, Geopolitics, Cilt 23, No 3, s. 718-742.
• Dalby, Simon (2020). “Bordering Sustainability in the Anthropocene”, Territory, Politics, Governance, Cilt 8, No 2, s. 144-160.
• Davies, Jeremy (2016). The Birth of the Antropocene, Berkeley, University of California Press.
• Delanty, Gerard ve Aurea Mota (2017). “Governing the Anthropocene: Agency, Governance, Knowledge”, European Journal of Social Theory, Cilt 20, No 1, s. 9-38.
• Dickens, Peter (2000). Social Darwinism: Linking Evolutionary Thought to Social Theory. Buckingham, Open University Press.
• Dickens, Peter (2001). “Changing Nature, Changing Ourselves”, Alethia, Cilt 4, No 2, s. 9-18.
• Dryzek, John S. ve Jonathan Pickering (2019). The Politics of the Anthropocene. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Eckersley, Robyn (2004). The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty. New York, The MIT Press.
• Erçandırlı, Yelda (2014). “Yeşil Teori”, Ramazan Gözen (der.), Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri. İstanbul, İletişim Yayınları, s. 493-516.
• Erçandırlı, Yelda (2019). “Antroposen Çağında Marx ve (Eko)Marksizmler: Toplum-Doğa İlişkisinin Diyalektiği”, Praksis, No 50, s. 179-203.
• Fishel, Stefanie et al. (2018). “Defending Planet Politics”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Cilt 46 No 2, s. 3-25.
• Foster, John Bellamy (2001). Marx’ın Ekolojisi: Materyalizm ve Doğa. Çeviren Ercüment Özkaya. Ankara, Epos.
• Foster, John Bellamy (2015). “Marx ve Doğanın Evrensel Metabolizmasında Çatlak”, Hakan Tanıttıran (der.), Çeviren Ali
• Galip. Marx, Doğa ve Yıkımın Ekolojisi. İstanbul: Kalkedon, s.7-38.
• Foster, John Bellamy (2012). Marksist Ekoloji. Çeviren Barış Baysal. İstanbul, Kalkedon.
• Foster, John Bellamy ve Brett Clark (2016). “Marxism and the Dialectics of Ecology”, Montly Review, Cilt 68, No 5, s.1-17.
• Gülcan, Duygu Tan (2018). “Ekolojik Kriz Karşısında Devletin Rolü Üzerine İdeolojik Bir Tartışma”, Uluslararası İlişkiler, Cilt 15, No 59, s. 49-63
• Hamilton, Clive (2017). Defiant Earth: The Fate of Humans in the Anthropocene, Malden, Polity Press.
• Hamilton, Clive (2015). “Getting the Anthropocene so Wrong”, The Anthropocene Review, Cilt 2, No 2, s. 102- 107.
• Hamilton, Scott (2019). “I am Uncertain, but We are not: A New Subjectivity of the Anthropocene”, Review of International Studies, Cilt 45, No 4, s. 607-626.
• Hardt, Judith Nora (2019). “Security Studies and the Discourse on the Anthropocene: Shortcomings, Challenges and Opportunities”, Thomas Hickmann et al. (der.), The Anthropocene and Political Science, Londra, Routledge, s. 85-102.
• Harrington, Cameron (2016). “The Ends of the World: International Relations and the Anthropocene”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Cilt 44, No 3, 2016, s. 478–498.
• Hartley, Daniel (2016). “Anthropocene, Capitalocene, and the Problem of the Culture”, Jason W. Moore (der.), Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, History and the Crisis of Capitalism. Oakland, PM Press, s. 154-165.
• Kavalski, Emillian (2012). “Waking IR Up from its ‘Deep Newtonian Slumber’”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Cilt 41, No 1, s. 137-150.
• Kolbert, Elizabeth (2019). Altıncı Yok Oluş, Çeviren Nalan Tümay. İstanbul, Okuyan Us Yayın, 5. Baskı.
• Laferriere, Eric ve Peter Stoett (1999). International Relations Theory and Ecological Thought: Towards a Synthesis, Londra, Routledge.
• LeCain, Timothy James (2015). “Against the Antropocene: A Neo-Materialist Perspective”, International Journal for History, Culture and Modernity, Cilt 3, No 1, s. 1-28.
• Lewis, Simon L. ve Mark A. Maslin (2015). “Defining the Anthropocene”, Nature, Cilt 519, s. 171-180.
• Luke, Timothy (2015). “Introduction: Political Critiques of the Anthropocene”, Telos, No 172, s. 3-14.
• Malm, Andreas (2018). The Progress of This Storm: Nature and Society in a Warming World. Londra, Verso Books.
• Malm, Andreas (2019). “Against Hybridism: Why We Need to Distinguish between Nature and Society, Now More than Ever”, Historical Materialism, Cilt 27, No 2, 2019, s. 156-187.
• Malm, Andreas ve Alf Hornborg (2014). “The Geology of Mankind: A Critique of the Anthropocene Narrative”, The Anthropocene Review, Cilt 1, No 1, s. 62-69.
• Marquardt, Jens (2019). “Worlds Apart? The Global South and the Anthropocene”, Thomas. Hickmann et al. (der.), The Anthropocene Debate and Political Science. Oxon, Routledge, s. 200-218.
• Marx, Karl (1993). 1844 El Yazmaları. Çeviren Kenan Somer. Ankara, Sol Yayınları.
• Marx, Karl ve Friedrich Engels (2018). Alman İdeolojisi. Çeviren Olcay Geridönmez ve Tonguç Ok. İstanbul, Kor Kitap.
• Moore, Jason (2010). “Cheap Food & Bad Money: Food, Frontiers, and Financialization in the Rise and Demise of Neoliberalism, Review, Cilt 33, No 2/3, s. 225-261.
• Moore, Jason (2017). “The Capitalocene, Part I: On the Nature and Origins of Our Ecological Crisis”, The Journal of Peasant Studies, Cilt 44, No 3, s. 594-630.
• Moore, Jason (2017). Hayatın Dokusundaki Kapitalizm: Sermaye Birikimi ve Ekoloji. Çeviren Alaz Munzur. Ankara, Epos.
• Moore, Jason (2018). “The Capitalocene Part II: Accumulation by Appropriation and the Centrality of Unpaid Work/ Energy”, The Journal of Peasant Studies, Cilt 45 No 42, s. 237-279.
• Moore, Jason W. (der.) (2016). Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, History and the Crisis of Capitalism, Oakland, PM Press.
• Mortan, Timothy (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology After the End of the World. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
• Ollman, Bertell (2005). “Marxism and the Philosophy of Internal Relations; or How to Replace the Mysterious ‘Paradox’ with ‘Contradictions’ that Can be Studied and Resolved”, Capital & Class, Cilt 39, No 1, s. 7-23.
• Paterson, Matthew (1996). Global Warming and Global Politics. Londra, Routledge.
• Rothe, Delf (2010). “Governing the End Times? Planet Politics and the Secular Eschatology of the Anthropocene”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Cilt 48, No 2, s. 143-164.
• Saurin, Julian (1996). “International Relations, Social Ecology and the Globalisation of Environmental Change”, John Vogler ve Mark F. Imber (der.), The Environment and International Relations, Londra, Routledge, s. 77-98;
• Steffen, Will et al. (2011). “The Anthropocene: From Global Change to Planetary Stewardship”, Ambio, Cilt 40, No 7, s. 739–761.
• “The Geology of the Planet: Welcome to the Anthropocene” (28 Mayıs 2011). The Economist, https://www.economist. com/node/18744401 (Erişim Tarihi 24 Nisan 2019).
• Ünver, H. Akın (2017). “Paris İklim Anlaşmasına Teorik Yaklaşım: Neo-Neo Tartışması, Eko-Marksizm ve Yeşil Kapitalizm”, Uluslararası İlişkiler, Cilt 14, No 54, s. 3-19.
• Van Ingen, Michel (2016). “Beyond the Nature/Culture Divide? The Contradictions of Rosi Braidotti’s The Posthuman”, Journal of Critical Realism, Cilt 15, No 5, s. 530-542.
• Wolfe, Carry (2010). What is Posthuman?, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press,
• Yalvaç, Faruk ve Yelda Erçandırlı (2019). “Geç Kapitalizmin İdeolojik Söylemi Olarak Yeni Materyalizm: Metalaşmış ‘Şeylerin’ Egemenliği”, Mülkiye Dergisi, Cilt 44, No 2, s. 261-285.
• Zalasiewicz, Jan et al. (2011). “The Anthropocene: A New Epoch of Geological Time?”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, Cilt 369, No 1938, s. 835-841.