Acceso usuarios
Barcelona, España
El presente artículo problematiza cómo la noción de Antropoceno, que ha adquirido relevancia en disciplinas como la geografía, la antropología y especialmente los Estudios de Ciencia y Tecnología (STS), ha sido incorporada también al campo de las Relaciones Internacionales (RRII), transformando de manera significativa sus marcos analíticos y normativos. Lejos de tratarse de una simple importación conceptual, el Antropoceno ha implicado una reconfiguración ontológica de la relación entre los seres humanos y sus entornos materiales. Este giro ha puesto en cuestión la suficiencia analítica de enfoques críticos tradicionales como el neomarxismo y las teorías postpositivistas. El artículo examina la influencia del posthumanismo, enfoque teórico clave en el debate sobre el Antropoceno, en el margen crítico de las RRII. Si bien esta corriente de pensamiento, que junto con otras afines como los nuevos materialismos suelen agruparse bajo la etiqueta de postcrítica, abrió la posibilidad de imaginar una praxis orientada a materializar relaciones no antropocéntricas entre lo humano y lo no humano, el texto subraya las limitaciones de estos enfoques, cuyos postulados emancipatorios y su proyección de un futuro relacional armonioso parecen indeleblemente escurridizos. Entre los principales problemas, se señalan los riesgos despolitizadores de concebir a la humanidad como un todo homogéneo afectado por amenazas ambientales o por el desenfrenado avance científico-técnico, ignorando como estos retos generan un impacto a intensidades desiguales. Asimismo, se expone el exceso de moralismo, normatividad y determinismo que caracterizan ciertos discursos posthumanistas, cuya infructuosa fuerza emancipatoria acaba siendo paradójicamente cooptada por las relaciones coloniales y de subyugación que sostienen el capitalismo racial. Frente a ello, el artículo identifica una nueva corriente emergente inspirada en Heidegger y Derrida que, a nivel ontológico, señala un giro hacia una dialéctica de la negatividad, donde la violencia no se concibe como una aberración superable del presente sino un componente constitutivo del ser. En el plano práctico, se cuestiona por lo tanto la mera posibilidad de intervenir generativamente en el mundo y se aboga por una praxis de sustracción, como el rechazo, intentando evitar así la captación por las estructuras de dominación. En conclusión, el artículo sostiene que tanto la crítica como la postcrítica permanecen atrapadas en la promesa de una emancipación futura que rara vez transforma las condiciones materiales de dominación. En respuesta a ello, esta incipiente aproximación teórico-práctica no ofrece un nuevo proyecto redentor, sino una invitación a cuestionar los fundamentos ontológicos del nexo ser-violencia y a explorar una praxis política que no reproduzca relaciones de desposesión, replanteando así el vínculo entre crítica, emancipación y subjetividad política.
This article explores how the notion of the Anthropocene, gaining prominence in disciplines such as geography, anthropology, and particularly in Science and Technology Studies (STS), has also made its way into the field of International Relations (IR), significantly reshaping its analytical and normative frameworks. Far from being a mere terminological import, the introduction of the Anthropocene has entailed an ontological reconfiguration of how the relationship between human beings and their material environments is understood. This shift has sparked a profound questioning of the adequacy of traditional critical theoretical approaches such as neo-Marxism and post-positivist theories. In this context, it is argued that the emergence of the Anthropocene has not only challenged the foundations of moderni-ty but has also catalysed the development of new theoretical approaches within critical thought, most notably, posthumanism and new materialism. These perspectives, often grouped under the umbrella of "post-critique," advocate for a radical rethinking of anthropocentrism. From this standpoint, a rearticu-lation of human–nonhuman relations is called for, aiming to produce theoretical frameworks that enable alternative modes of existence, ones that surpass anthropocentrism. A significant portion of contempo-rary thought in IR has embraced these proposals, contending that they hold the potential to enable an emancipatory praxis capable of imagining and constructing futures based on harmonious and durable relations between the human and the non-human.However, the second part of the article argues that the initial enthusiasm toward the emancipatory pos-sibilities of posthumanism has had a limited impact, both within the discipline of IR and in terms of its political applicability beyond academic settings. Various scholars have begun to problematize some of the core assumptions that underpin post-critical approaches. While these theories offer compelling tools for rethinking politics in relational terms, they also carry significant conceptual and practical risks. One of the most pressing concerns is the tendency to depoliticize the historical and structural power dynamics that underpin the current planetary crisis. For instance, the notion of a homogeneous "humanity" equal-ly affected by global environmental transformations overlooks the colonial, racial, and class asymme-tries that shape how ecological catastrophe is experienced. Such narratives, although well-intentioned, tend to obscure the structural inequalities that underlie phenomena like climate change or biodiversity loss, masking the differentiated responsibilities and vulnerabilities of various actors. In particular, they downplay the historical role of colonial extractive practices in precipitating the eco-social crisis, and they ignore how these same systems continue to disproportionately harm racialized and marginalized political subjectivities across the Global South. In doing so, posthumanist approaches, despite their at-tempt to transcend the modern subject, sometimes inadvertently perpetuate the very regimes of power that sustain racial and colonial capitalism. Additionally, the article problematises what it identifies as an excessive moralism, normativity, and determinism within some post-critical narratives, which often idealize a better, more relational, and durable future. This projection of a utopian horizon, while ethi-cally compelling, can become a kind of temporal fetishism, one that indefinitely postpones the moment of emancipation and thereby contributes to the reproduction of the existing order. In this context, the article highlights the importance of identifying the teleological fantasies that underpin both critical and post-critical approaches. These fantasies operate as promises of political redemption that are never realized, creating a paradoxical dynamic: while proclaiming a radical break with the current order, they remain structurally dependent on the very systems they seek to dismantle.From this diagnosis, the article engages with scholars who warn that the emancipatory energies of criti-cal and post-critical thought are increasingly susceptible to co-optation by the same structures of power that sustain global regimes of dispossession. In particular, it argues that grand narratives of liberation, even in their posthumanist forms, risk being absorbed into the ideological apparatus of racial capitalism, which has demonstrated a remarkable capacity to absorb, neutralize, and repurpose transformative discourses. In such a scenario, it becomes imperative to consider alternatives that do not merely aim to reform existing frameworks but instead propose a true ontological undoing of the structures that natu-ralize colonial and racial violence. At this point, the article introduces an emerging theoretical-practical current that adopts a more sceptical stance toward traditional emancipatory promises. Ontologically, it proposes a revisiting of the Heideggerian being–violence binomial, the concept of Destruktion and his critique of Hegelian negativity, alongside Derrida’s contribution to that, to suggest that violence is not a reformable component of the being, but rather a constitutive element of its very formation. This per-spective invites a radical reconsideration of how being is reduced to exclusionary categories by colonial science and metaphysics. On the practical level, this trend explores the potential of a subtractive praxis, such as refusal, that can enable legitimate forms of political action. Rather than being seen as a failure to intervene or as a political resignation, these practices are reframed as deliberate acts of unmaking, a refusal to participate in a world ontologically forged in and through colonial violence.In conclusion, the article argues that both critical and post-critical approaches are underpinned by an enduring obsession with the promise of future emancipation. While such promises can be politically mobilizing, they have often proven ineffective in transforming the material conditions that sustain glob-al structures of domination. Therefore, a fundamental rethinking of the relationship between critique, emancipation and political subjectivity is necessary. Although these emerging currents may provoke scepticism due to their apparent lack of immediate practical solutions, they should not be dismissed as apolitical gestures. On the contrary, they represent a radical challenge to the ever-deferred promises of both critique and post-critique, promises that, paradoxically, sustain the very order they claim to contest. What they offer is not a new blueprint for emancipation, but rather an invitation to interrogate the ontological grounds upon which our current political imaginaries rest. In doing so, they create space to ask how we might engage in a form of politics that does not merely resist from within the existing structures but dares to refuse them and forgo their broken promises. The potential of these voices lies precisely in opening up the possibility of reimagining how political praxis can be articulated without re-producing the colonial logics of dispossession that feed racial capitalism.
