Search

Since its origin in 15th century European imperialism, the globe has been an object of conquest involving regimes of territorial exclusion and various forms of land abstraction now known as nationalism, colonialism, capitalism, and industrialism. Coming to think like the Earth system and generating politics grounded in it could pose a welcome disruption of these systematically controlling orders only if such planetary thinking is grounded in a nondominating orientation. We propose that this grounding be geological wonder, the open consideration of Earth as a system exceeding human narcissism. Following Dipesh Chakrabarty's distinction between the globe and the planet, we articulate planetarism in an emerging cosmology decentering human life while emphasizing human limits. Globality, by contrast, is a modern, narcissistic formation that geological wonder unsettles. We draw on Martha C. Nussbaum's politics of wonder to articulate a postglobal, disruptive virtue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To reconsider the meaning of justice in a planetary frame is both a necessity in our time of multiple entangled crises and an endeavour that seeks convergence and synthesis where there might instead be irreconcilable differences. We invited scholars from diverse disciplinary backgrounds to share their perspectives on the scope, scale, and purpose of planetary justice and received a variety of responses – all highly worthwhile in their own right. What we can conclude from this new milestone in the literature on planetary justice is that people emphasize different justice concerns and operate with different ontologies. Are the Earth system and the pluriverse opposing frameworks or somehow reconcilable? What concerns should be prioritized is also contested. Can there be a decolonial, multispecies, Earth systemic, justice that begins with the self and where matter is included in our sphere of justice? However, one agreement seems to be that planetary justice is inevitably ecosocial justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Justice concerns have been central to contemporary social and ecological debates for decades but have only recently made inroads into the Earth system centric discourses on the Anthropocene and planetary boundaries. Our focus here is the emerging discourse on planetary justice which has aimed to be a corrective to this lacuna. Our goals in this paper are to delineate the general parameters and novel contributions of planetary justice while also recognizing the emergent variability within this discourse. In order to accomplish these goals we analyze the discourse through three interrelated analytical themes: First, how approaches to planetary justice envision scope across different human practices and categories of humanity and nature. Second, how they envision scale across space and time. Third, how they envision the ecosocial purpose of planetary justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through a morphological analysis of early neoliberal discourse, it is argued that preserving the system of states became integral to neoliberalism after a period of contestation. It is common knowledge that the early neoliberals thought of economic nationalism as an archaic practice. But it is less well known that they also learned to dread institutional cosmopolitanism. The first cohort of neoliberal theorists, despite displaying cosmopolitan propensities economically and morally, decided during the 1940s to abandon the cosmopolitan political principles that several early institutional designs had followed. The neoliberals realized that nationalism had an upside. Their reasoning was pragmatic rather than democratic. A cosmopolitan world order, with a central democratic decision-making body – such as a world government answerable to a world parliament elected by the world populace – would more likely than not be anathema to their primary project; creating a world economy for entrepreneurs. Hence, they finally embraced borders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is a robust theoretical alternative to nationalism? For many seasoned cosmopolitan thinkers the answer is internationalism, which is generally perceived to be a sound foundation for creating a global polity in the form of a federation of nations. But this assumption is here criticised on the basis that it is founded on an inherent fallacy – internationalism is only a modification of nationalism, where the latter remains the ideological nucleus in conceptual terms – which therefore means that today many renowned cosmopolitan thinkers in the last instance seek to build a global polity on the same divisive ideational foundation that brought on the World Wars in the last century. Because of the shared roots of nationalism and internationalism, the salient question is really; what comes after the international? The answer argued for here is; a novel paradigm of 'planetarism' that is not a compromise with the extant nationalisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]