Acceso usuarios
Mariana Castro
Este artículo sostiene que el Antropoceno constituye un acontecimiento ético-político que abre la posibilidad de formular nuevas agendas de investigación, de ensayar una praxis renovada y de construir alianzas inéditas —entre seres humanos y no humanos, entre diferentes campos del saber y entre estados nación— capaces de reconfigurar nuestra comprensión tanto de la política como de las Relaciones Internacionales. El objetivo central es, por un lado, realizar un análisis crítico del concepto de Antropoceno y, por otro, aportar al debate proponiendo su articulación con las dimensiones de género y raza, usualmente marginalizadas en la literatura especializada.
El enfoque teórico-metodológico es de carácter conceptual, basado en una revisión bibliográfica amplia y en la exploración de los debates científicos y políticos que rodean al término. Esta elección metodológica se justifica por la naturaleza reciente y en disputa del concepto, lo que requiere una mirada analítica que articule diferentes campos disciplinares y epistemológicos.
El texto se organiza en cuatro secciones, además de las consideraciones finales. En la primera sección se presenta un mapeo del campo terminológico-científico que intenta nombrar este fenómeno, destacando cómo las ciencias y los movimientos sociales convergen en la producción de interpretaciones sobre la emergencia climática. La segunda sección aborda el desarrollo del concepto en el ámbito de las Ciencias del Sistema Tierra. En la tercera sección se analizan las disputas en torno al concepto desde las perspectivas de las Ciencias Humanas, enfatizando cómo diferentes corrientes críticas problematizan las implicaciones políticas y epistemológicas del Antropoceno. Finalmente, en la cuarta sección se presenta la contribución que consiste en relacionar el concepto con las dimensiones de género y raza, mostrando de qué manera estas categorías enriquecen la comprensión de los impactos y de las responsabilidades diferenciales en el marco de la crisis climática global.
En suma, el artículo busca ofrecer un aporte al debate interdisciplinario sobre el Antropoceno, enfatizando que su potencia política radica no solo en la descripción de transformaciones planetarias, sino también en la apertura hacia nuevas formas de pensar la justicia, las alianzas y las prácticas políticas en el presente.
Over the last two decades, the Anthropocene has emerged as one of the most powerful and contested concepts for describing the magnitude of human impacts on the Earth system. What initially appeared as a geological proposition soon transgressed disciplinary boundaries and became a central reference in the humanities and social sciences, generating intense debate about its political and ethical implications. This article argues that the Anthropocene should not be understood merely as a scientific classification of a new epoch, but rather as an ethical-political event that reshapes how we think about politics and International Relations. Approaching it in this way allows us to highlight its potential to open new re-search agendas, foster renewed praxis, and enable the construction of novel alliances between humans and non-humans, across diverse scientific domains, and among nation-states. Our contribution lies in articulating the Anthropocene with the dimensions of gender and race, which remain largely absent from mainstream discussions but are fundamental to understanding the differentiated vulnerabilities, respon-sibilities, and capacities that structure the global climate crisis. The main objective of the article is to critically engage with the concept of the Anthropocene in order to contribute to interdisciplinary debates within International Relations and related fields. To achieve this aim, we adopt a conceptual and theoretical approach grounded in an extensive review of scientific and critical literature. This methodological choice reflects the contested nature of the concept and its ana-lytical and political relevance. On the one hand, the Anthropocene is still debated within Earth System Sciences, where its temporal demarcation and definitional boundaries remain unresolved. On the other hand, its diffusion into the humanities and social sciences has brought new layers of critique, particularly those stressing the unequal distribution of ecological responsibilities and vulnerabilities across the globe. These overlapping discussions require an approach capable of weaving together scientific debates and broader societal concerns, as well as taking seriously the contributions of social movements, feminist thought, and postcolonial perspectives. Our methodology does not seek to provide definitive answers or to settle controversies about the Anthropocene’s precise meaning. Rather, it explores the multiplicity of interpretations that surround the concept and examines how this plurality generates productive ten-sions, illuminating the ethical and political stakes at play. The article is structured in four sections, followed by concluding reflections. The first section addresses the terminological and scientific landscape that seeks to capture the phenomenon we now call the An-thropocene. Beyond the term itself, alternative denominations underscore the contestations over cau-sality, responsibility, and agency. The analysis shows that debates about naming are far from semantic disputes: they shape the identification of actors responsible for planetary transformations and determine the range of possible solutions. Importantly, this section also highlights how the vocabulary of the An-thropocene circulates beyond academia, resonating with activist discourses and social movements. This dynamic illustrates that the act of naming is already political, bridging scientific authority and public mobilization in the struggle over how to make sense of the climate emergency. The second section situates the Anthropocene within Earth System Sciences. It traces the genealogy of the concept from the early formulation by Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer to its present prominence in the work of the Anthropocene Working Group of the International Commission on Stratigraphy. By reviewing the controversies surrounding its temporal starting point—whether it should be traced back to the Industrial Revolution, the mid-twentieth-century “Great Acceleration,” or even earlier moments of colonial expansion—we argue that these scientific debates are inseparable from political narratives. Geological markers are not neutral descriptors of planetary change but carry profound implications for assigning blame and shaping collective futures. Each proposed starting point distributes responsibili-ty differently, whether emphasizing industrial capitalism, nuclear technologies, or colonial extractions, thereby embedding normative assumptions within apparently technical disputes. The third section turns to the humanities and social sciences, where the Anthropocene has been rein-terpreted and contested in diverse ways. While the concept has become a powerful heuristic to describe planetary-scale transformations, critics have underscored that it risks homogenizing “humanity” as a geological force and obscuring the profound inequalities that structure environmental change. By engaging with contributions from political theory, anthropology, history, and critical geography, we show that the Anthropocene is not only a temporal marker but also a conceptual battlefield where competing worldviews about modernity, capitalism, and colonialism confront one another. This section emphasizes that the Anthropocene challenges foundational dichotomies between nature and society, human and non-human, subject and object. At the same time, it highlights how critical perspectives insist on the need to differentiate responsibilities and vulnerabilities, underscoring that not all humans contribute equally to planetary degradation, nor are all equally exposed to its consequences. The fourth section presents our original contribution by relating the Anthropocene to the dimensions of gender and race. We argue that any meaningful engagement with the Anthropocene must be attentive to the structural inequalities that shape the lived experience of climate change and other ecological crises. Feminist scholarship has long demonstrated that environmental burdens fall unequally on wom-en, particularly in marginalized communities where gendered divisions of labor and limited access to resources exacerbate vulnerabilities. Similarly, postcolonial and critical race perspectives have exposed how legacies of slavery, colonialism, and systemic racism continue to shape the distribution of risks and responsibilities in the present. By bringing these dimensions into the debate, we insist that the Anthro-pocene is not simply about humanity as a collective species but about deeply differentiated and histori-cally constituted relations of power. Our intervention thus broadens the scope of Anthropocene debates by highlighting the intersectional nature of ecological injustice, linking planetary transformations to struggles for gender, racial and climate justice. The concluding remarks synthesize the argument and reflect on its broader implications for International Relations and political theory. We contend that the Anthropocene’s political potential lies not merely in describing planetary transformations but in enabling new imaginaries of justice, responsibility, and sol-idarity. By emphasizing the categories of gender and race, we aim to foster a more inclusive and inter-sectional understanding of planetary politics, one that acknowledges both differentiated responsibilities and diverse capacities for action. Furthermore, we suggest that the Anthropocene invites scholars and practitioners alike to rethink alliances across species, disciplines, and borders, opening possibilities for new forms of cooperation and collective agency. In sum, the article presents the Anthropocene as an ethical-political event that destabilizes established categories and practices while inviting novel forms of inquiry and action. Our contribution lies not only in mapping the contested terrain of the concept but also in insisting on the indispensability of gender and race for any serious engagement with the politics of the Anthropocene. By doing so, we hope to enrich interdisciplinary debates and to highlight pathways towards fairer and plural responses to the climate emergency.
