Portal de revistas electrónicas de la UAM (Univ. Autónoma de Madrid)
Not a member yet
14423 research outputs found
Sort by
Quantifying hegemony in the Capitalocene
No full textDurante las últimas décadas el debate académico e intelectual en términos de Antropoceno, Capitaloceno, Plantacionoceno y Cthuluceno ha experimentado un desarrollo y un alcance mayúsculo. Este se ha convertido en crucial de cara afrontar desde posiciones teóricas las policrisis sistémicas más allá de los enfoques convencionales de la Economía Política, las Ciencias Políticas, la Sociología, las Relaciones internacionales y la Antropología. Esta conversación desde distintos prismas ha provisto de marcos teóricos de gran fortaleza epistemológica, pero a la vez adaptables contextualmente, para afrontar de manera crítica los retos emergentes en este plano. No obstante, han sido escasos los desarrollos y propuestas metodológicas concretos que se han formulado a partir de estos de cara a su implementación para estudios de caso particulares. Es justo aquí donde este trabajo busca contribuir con dos objetivos principales. Por un lado, elaborar una metodología cuantitativa que sea útil para analizar las transformaciones en la movilidad y las jerarquías globales desde el prisma de la ecología-mundo capitalista como estructura histórico-espacial que sintetiza de manera trialéctica la acumulación capitalista, la producción de la naturaleza humana y extrahumana y las relaciones de poder. Por otro lado, aplicar esta técnica al periodo que abarca las últimas décadas para analizar cómo se ha expresado en este contexto la grieta metabólica y el imperialismo ecológico en la jerarquía de los Estados. Para poder alcanzarlos este artículo se divide en tres apartados. En la primera abordamos una revisión teórica de los puntos de encuentro y disenso de la economía ecológica y los sistemas-mundo. En el segundo apartado teórico-metodológico llevamos a cabo la misma revisión pero desde el punto de vista de sus desarrollo metodológicos, así como debatimos y detallamos nuestra propuesta de análisis cuantitativo que parte de la base teórica de la ecología-mundo. Y, finalmente, en el tercer apartado vemos los resultados obtenidos sobre una muestra de 110 Estados para los periodos de 1995 y 2020 y los discutimos. Pese a las limitaciones que se explicitan y la necesidad de ahondar en esta línea de trabajo, podemos apreciar cómo esta herramienta se muestra como un potencial complemento para el análisis cualitativo e historiográfico dentro de la historia ambiental.The broad contemporary academic and intellectual debate on the axes that define the Anthropocene/Capitalocene/Plantationocene/Cthulucene era, its future prospects, and other ontological elements has undergone significant development in recent years. Thanks to this debate, epistemological tools and new frameworks have been generated to understand both current socio-ecological conditions and realities and those that preceded them from much earlier historical periods. This trend has made it possible to broaden the more orthodox horizons of political economics, political science, international relations, sociology, and anthropology to address systemic polycrises. However, the limits around which this conversation has centered have been fundamentally theoretical, with the aim of consolidating the knowledge bases on which these often antagonistic but also complementary perspectives are built, depending on the elements in question. In contrast, methodological proposals within this line of thinking have been much more limited. It partially makes sense as these heterodoxal and critical perspectives normally do not focus on that and they aim to build up alternative empirical methodologies . However, the lack of depth on this issue and the scarcity of specific tools for a less abstract analysis also partially limit the potential of the results of this conversation when it comes to applying them to particular case studies. It is at this point that this work aims to make its contribution but not only. Based primarily on the theoretical framework of the Capitalocene, this article has two main goals. The first one is to develop a methodological proposal for evaluating the hierarchy and hegemony of states within the capitalist world-ecology. Second, by using this technique, to analyze precisely what the process of mobility within this structure has been over the last few decades, taking into account its relevance given the increase in the contradictions of the metabolic rift on a global scale. To achieve these aims, the paper is divided as follows.
The first theoretical-methodological part addresses the different streams and contributions within world-systems theory and ecological economics from their beginnings. Although the latter is more general than the former and covers many more aspects, the reality is that both have found multiple points of convergence throughout their history from an epistemological point of view: the element of contradiction between material flows and monetary flows, unequal exchange as a form of domination that enables ecological imperialism, the permanent search for new cheap natural resources to expand those already present and so on. However, they do not necessarily coincide in their historical view of accumulation cycles and their origin, the more normative definition of the center-periphery structure and how its development is, the root and role that socio-environmental conflicts can play, etc. Nevertheless, the view of world-ecology as a synthesis of capitalist accumulation, human and extra-human nature production and a set of power relations offers a good theoretical starting point based on many of the contributions of these streams of thought. However, once the differences between the two have been discussed and differentiated, we attempt to highlight the different methodologies that have been proposed and developed by each of them. First, this presentation is made from the perspective of ecological economics. Within this field we highlight three main trends: material flow analysis, unequal ecological exchange and energy dependence. In each of these, we can distinguish both the variables that carry the most weight when being selected and the possible limitations that may be encountered depending on the inferences made. Secondly, we delve into the specific techniques of world-systems school. In this case, we can also find up to three main methods. First, there is the approximation of the per capita income distribution curve against the accumulated population as one of the most basic but useful methods. The second one would be the technique of network analysis and clustering based on multiple independent variables and relationships between states. In both cases they depart from Arrighi’s perspective including only those variables related with international division of labor, capitalist accumulation and uneven exchange, but not those political ones. Finally, we can distinguish the continuum method to produce an ordered hierarchy of states based on multiple variables that are linked not only to the international division of labor but also to coercive capacity and levels of integration into the global structure. In contrast with the second one here it is not possible to obtain a clear clustering outcome.
Assessing all the options available when formulating the methodological proposal, we find the following limitations. On the part of ecological economics, as with the distribution of per capita income versus the accumulated population in the first world-systems proposal, many of them end up reducing their results to inferences based on limited variables to represent the model they propose. Meanwhile, if we take a look at the case of network analysis and clustering by world systems, here we find an obvious limitation in the availability of data regarding information on state to state relations, and we may also find variables that need to be independent and in many cases are not, as in the case of ecological economics versus economics. From here, we opted to implement a model based on the continuum proposal. This allows us to incorporate variables of economic power as previously in former papers (capital intensity, productive capacity, exports, control over global capital), but also to incorporate those socio-ecological variables that we select as an inference from world-ecology perspective (material productivity, material footprint, labor productivity, energy use, dependence on extractivism), and global dependence in the same way (concentration of exports and global financial dependence) with a relative large sample (110 States) and taking the years 1995 and 2020 as a reference for the analysis. With this technique, we can test that the inclusion of socio-ecological variables partially overrepresents the mobility of some states in relation to the results obtained from them in previous studies from the perspective of international relations and political economy. However, although this proposal is still in its early stages, it shows the potential to complement studies and work from the qualitative perspective from the Anthropocene, the Capitalocene and the world-systems gaze by means of incorporating the axis of unequal ecological exchange and the metabolic rift
Relaciones Internacionales y el Antropoceno: encuentros entre paradigmas, batallas y pluralismo
No full textA growing body of scholarship contends that the Anthropocene entails not only a fundamental transformation in how the world is understood, but also a paradigmatic shift in society, politics, and theory, accompanied by the imperative to bring the sciences together. Yet despite this recognition, the contemporary “knowledge basis” surrounding the Anthropocene—including the actions it prescribes—remains epistemologically fragile. In particular, it lacks a sufficiently grounded integration of social and natural sciences. Substantial scholarly work therefore remains to be done to reconstruct Anthropocene knowledge in a more coherent, reflexive, and methodologically robust manner.
This article contributes to this task and to the Special Issue by interrogating the epistemological foundations of current Anthropocene research. It argues that the scientific and theoretical bases of the Anthropocene remain underdeveloped and are constrained by unresolved paradigm conflicts, disciplinary biases, and methodological fragmentation. These limitations continue to impede the emergence of a coherent research agenda capable of engaging the complexity and urgency of the Anthropocene.
The article examines how Anthropocene research is currently being shaped within International Relations (IR), while situating these debates within the broader field of Anthropocene scholarship. It focuses on three principal bodies of knowledge. First, Earth System Sciences (ESS), which are central to defining the Anthropocene in geological and planetary terms. Second, International Relations, which approaches the Anthropocene through global political, economic, and security lenses. Third, philosophical approaches broadly categorized as New Materialism and Posthumanism, which foreground relational ontologies and human–nonhuman entanglements.
As this article demonstrates, encounters between disciplines –especially within IR itself- in the search for paradigmatic change and pluridisciplinary research demand greater analytical scrutiny than they have thus far received. Such encounters remain insufficiently systematized and rarely problematized. The complexity and urgency of the Anthropocene call for a fundamental reorientation of knowledge production that transcends disciplinary boundaries, accommodates ontological diversity, and cultivates epistemic pluralism. While ESS provides indispensable planetary-scale analyses, New Materialism/Posthumanism offers insights into micro-level relational dynamics, and IR contributes global political-economic perspectives, none of these approaches alone is adequate for addressing the multifaceted challenges of the Anthropocene.
Despite widespread acknowledgment of this insufficiency, constructive proposals for engaging and integrating these distinct paradigms remain limited. Practical and institutional barriers to collaboration, enduring power asymmetries between disciplines, and persistent paradigm tensions constitute significant obstacles. These dynamics often generate fragmented and partially disconnected bodies of knowledge, marked by both internal and external frictions. Within IR in particular, Anthropocene research appears increasingly characterized by conceptual ambiguity, disciplinary competition, and intellectual stagnation. Rather than advancing integrative frameworks, the field has become preoccupied with internal debates and defensive responses to paradigm encounters and clashes.
In response, this article seeks to disentangle Anthropocene debates within IR that have increasingly conflated heterogeneous perspectives. It deliberately adopts a meta-analytical approach in order to differentiate, categorize, and critically reflect on the sources of thought informing these debates. Central to this effort is a foundational analytical question: who is saying what, informed by which worldview? From this follows a further inquiry into the kinds of worlds that Anthropocene scholarship brings into being—and those that remain obscured or marginalized. More broadly, the article argues for the need to further “unpack the Trojan horse” of Anthropocene scholarship by critically examining the assumptions, methods, and power relations embedded within disciplinary traditions. Such a meta-perspective can illuminate blind spots and enable more constructive engagement across paradigms.
To address the current condition of paradigm competition and Anthropocene “anarchy,” the article advances the principle of paradigm pluralism as a potential contribution from IR. Paradigm pluralism allows for the assemblage of diverse analytical toolkits and bodies of research on the basis of mutual recognition rather than epistemic hierarchy. Building on this foundation, the article sketches a preliminary research agenda grounded in the analytical tools of security studies and an ecological perspective. It argues that critical approaches to security studies—given its established position within IR—combined with insights from Green IR Theory, which is informed by Green Political Theory and Political Ecology (GPT/PE)- can function as a conceptual junction for systematically advancing Anthropocene inquiry. This approach is understood as the juxtaposition and comparative analysis of disciplinary work, centered on threat–response logics and ecological relationality. Both are central to conceptualizing the Anthropocene as a transformation in human–nature relations marked by existential risks.
A first part of the research agenda applies the analytical frameworks from critical security studies to the three heterogeneous bodies of Anthropocene knowledge. This would enable a systematic comparison of underlying values, threat perceptions, and proposed responses, while positioning the threat–response framework as a potential analytical junction for Anthropocene Studies.
The second component of the proposed framework focuses on the human–nature relationship as articulated within the ecological paradigms of GPT/PE. This includes attention to forms of centrism, subject–object relations, holism, and futurity. By centering analysis on the condition of humankind—its values, fears, and entanglements with nonhuman worlds—this perspective opens up philosophical debates concerning futures, security, apocalyptic imaginaries, and existential meaning.
Methodologically, the proposed research agenda sketches out a cross-reading of ESS, IR, and New Materialist/Posthumanist scholarship using shared analytical categories derived from security studies and ecological paradigm, grounded in paradigm pluralism. This allows distinct bodies of knowledge to be assembled alongside one another rather than ordered hierarchically.
Rather than reinforcing disciplinary silos, the proposed approach operates at the disciplinary boundaries. It asks not how each discipline should proceed in isolation, but how shared analytical reference points can be identified and bridged through pluri- and transdisciplinary engagement. In doing so, it aims to (a) establish an initial structure for pluridisciplinary dialogue, (b) identify areas of convergence as well as fundamental divergences or counter-approaches, and (c) reveal gaps and blind spots that have thus far remained underexplored.
Four broader implications accompany this research agenda, which need also further elaboration. First, plurality must extend to the politics of knowledge production itself while avoiding to produce a totalizing narrative. Second, the limits and role of knowledge warrant sustained critical attention. Third, the societal and political effects of Anthropocene research, as well as the inclusion of diverse actors in knowledge-production processes, constitute both key opportunities and persistent challenges. This requires foregrounding principles of inclusivity and co-production to ensure that scientific knowledge remains embedded within social realities, political contexts, and normative commitments. At the same time, expanding the limited knowledge base underlying socio-ecological transformation processes is both necessary and politically important but also a challenging endeavor. Fourth, conceptualizing Anthropocene Studies as a survival science raises further questions regarding the securitization of knowledge and its consequences.
Taken together, this article argues that IR—by engaging hard sciences, hard politics such as security, and philosophical and normative inquiry—can contribute to negotiating multiple cosmologies, ontologies, and epistemologies within a more comprehensive analytical framework. While this agenda does not offer definitive solutions, it underscores the importance of sustained engagement, critical reflexivity, and the imperative to “think harder” about Anthropocene Studies. Such thinking is essential not only for understanding the evolving human–Earth relationship, but also for informing political and scholarly responses aimed at navigating conditions of survival in the Anthropocene.Los académicos de las Relaciones Internacionales (RRII) están lidiando con las implicaciones de una propuesta de nueva era geológica, a veces llamada Antropoceno. Este artículo aborda explícitamente las fuentes de conocimiento y los encuentros paradigmáticos sobre cómo influyen de forma determinante y sobredeterminan los estudios de las Relaciones Internacionales del Antropoceno y truncan el proyecto de los Estudios del Antropoceno. Sostengo que las RRII del Antropoceno se han basado principalmente en enfoques que se apoyan en las ciencias del sistema Tierra y el nuevo materialismo/poshumanismo que tienen su origen en diferentes ecologías de conocimiento, pero que también comparten compromisos epistemológicos y ontológicos que desafían la tradicional comprensión del mundo por parte de las RRII. Este artículo defiende que, a pesar de los crecientes llamamientos para consolidar los estudios del Antropoceno, los enfoques reflexivos y emancipadores capaces de involucrar y negociar paradigmas contrapuestos siguen estando poco desarrollados. Por el contrario, las prácticas institucionales arraigadas, las relaciones de poder asimétricas y las tensiones epistemológicas no resueltas continúan estructurando y limitando las posibilidades para la colaboración.
El informe se desarrolla mediante: a) la identificación de los paradigmas subyacentes en las RRII existentes del Antropoceno; b) la exposición de cómo dichos paradigmas entra en conflicto y, de manera importante, influyen y generan confusión en las RRII; c) la revisión de las proyecciones limitadas de la investigación pluridisciplinaria desde una perspectiva metaanalítica y d) el intento de llamar a las nuevas formas de abordar explícitamente los estudios del Antropoceno. De este modo, sugiere reorientar las actuales batallas paradigmáticas hacia los esfuerzos constructivos de pluralismo paradigmático y de diálogo y negociación transdisciplinarios. Asimismo, propone una agenda de investigación informada por los estudios críticos de seguridad y el paradigma ecológico que alberga una comparación e integración sistemáticas del conocimiento académico disciplinario que pone en un primer plano la lógica amenaza-respuesta y la relacionalidad ecológica. Ambas son fundamentales para conceptualizar el Antropoceno como una transformación estructural de las relaciones entre el ser humano y la naturaleza, caracterizadas por riesgos existenciales generalizados. Este informe sostiene que recurrir al espectro completo de aportes de las Relaciones Internacionales —desde las ciencias duras y la alta política hasta la indagación filosófica y normativa de la Teoría Verde de las RRII— permitiría la negociación sobre las múltiples cosmologías, ontologías y epistemologías dentro de un marco más integral, de forma que quede abierto un espacio para un debate renovado sobre cómo abordar los estudios del Antropoceno
Espacio y Color in Buenos Aires: Spanish Informalism in the Argentine Context
No full textThis article examines the production context of the exhibition Espacio y Color en la Pintura Española de Hoy [Space and Color in Spanish Painting Today], presented at the Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes de Buenos Aires [National Museum of Fine Arts of Buenos Aires] in 1960. Curated by Luis González Robles, the exhibition sought to promote Spanish abstract art, with particular emphasis on informal abstraction. Situated within a broader set of cultural initiatives sponsored by the Francoist dictatorship, this exhibition exemplifies the tensions surrounding informalism and its deployment as a representation of Spanish culture and of the Spanish past. We analyze its reception within the Argentine art scene through critical discourses produced both inside and outside Argentina in the late 1950s.This article examines the production context of the exhibition Espacio y Color en la Pintura Española de Hoy [Space and Color in Spanish Painting Today], presented at the Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes de Buenos Aires [National Museum of Fine Arts of Buenos Aires] in 1960. Curated by Luis González Robles, the exhibition sought to promote Spanish abstract art, with particular emphasis on informal abstraction. Situated within a broader set of cultural initiatives sponsored by the Francoist dictatorship, this exhibition exemplifies the tensions surrounding informalism and its deployment as a representation of Spanish culture and of the Spanish past. We analyze its reception within the Argentine art scene through critical discourses produced both inside and outside Argentina in the late 1950s
Aceptación de ChatGPT en Educación Superior: Actitudes y Percepciones del modelo UTAUT2
No full textThe incorporation of artificial intelligence into education is transforming teaching and learning processes, generating the need to understand how students perceive and accept these new technologies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acceptance of ChatGPT among university students. The research included 254 students, mostly between 18 and 20 years old. Using an ex post facto methodology, the relationships between the variables of the UTAUT2 model were analyzed to examine the acceptance of ChatGPT, using a questionnaire based on Strzelecki & ElArabawy (2024) to collect data on perceptions and behaviors. The results show that the model\u27s dimensions have a significant impact on usage behavior, and that students who use ChatGPT more frequently tend to perceive it as a more useful and user-friendly tool. These findings highlight the importance of promoting the integration of artificial intelligence into educational settings. However, this growing reliance on AI-based tools also raises critical questions about the potential effects on the development of critical thinking, student autonomy, and equity in access to technology, opening a necessary debate on how to balance technological innovation with ethical and reflective training in education. It is concluded that tools like ChatGPT not only influence the academic field but also contribute to the social and cultural transformation in which they are immersed.La incorporación de la inteligencia artificial en el ámbito educativo está transformando los procesos de enseñanza y aprendizaje, generando la necesidad de comprender cómo los estudiantes perciben y aceptan estas nuevas tecnologías. El propósito de este estudio ha sido evaluar la aceptación de ChatGPT entre estudiantes universitarios. La investigación contó con la participación de 254 estudiantes, mayoritariamente entre 18 y 20 años. Mediante una metodología ex post facto, se analizaron las relaciones entre las variables del modelo UTAUT2 para examinar la aceptación de ChatGPT, utilizando un cuestionario basado en Strzelecki y ElArabawy (2024) para recoger datos sobre percepciones y comportamientos. Los resultados muestran que las dimensiones del modelo tienen un impacto significativo en el comportamiento de uso, y que los estudiantes que utilizan ChatGPT con mayor frecuencia tienden a percibirlo como una herramienta más útil y fácil de usar. Estos hallazgos destacan la importancia de promover la integración de la inteligencia artificial en los entornos educativos. No obstante, esta creciente dependencia de herramientas basadas en IA también plantea preguntas críticas sobre los posibles efectos en el desarrollo del pensamiento crítico, la autonomía del estudiante y la equidad en el acceso a la tecnología, abriendo un debate necesario sobre cómo equilibrar la innovación tecnológica con la formación ética y reflexiva en la educación. Se concluye que herramientas como ChatGPT no solo influyen en el ámbito académico, sino que también contribuyen a la transformación social y cultural en la que están inmersas
Educational Inequality in Portugal: Analysis of the Impact of ESCS on PISA 2022
No full textLa equidad es un desafío que persiste en las escuelas a nivel global y Portugal no es excepción. Portugal ha mejorado en el rendimiento medio del alumnado en los ciclos de PISA, si bien siguen existiendo desigualdades relativas al nivel socioeconómico. Este estudio tiene como objetivo analizar la relación entre el nivel socioeconómico y el rendimiento académico del alumnado portugués en PISA 2022. A través de modelos jerárquicos lineales se analizan las variables más significativas, de nivel estudiante y nivel centro, en el rendimiento de las tres competencias de PISA. Posteriormente se estima el efecto del índice ESCS sobre el rendimiento en matemáticas, lectura y ciencias, permitiendo observar cómo varían las pendientes de cada centro. Cuanto más acentuada la pendiente más desigualdad de oportunidades hay en ese centro. Los resultados confirman una asociación significativa entre muchas variables contextuales y el rendimiento, especialmente entre el estatus socioeconómico y el rendimiento, reflejando las desigualdades de oportunidades en Portugal. Estos hallazgos permiten reflexionar sobre la importancia de tener en cuenta el contexto en el análisis de la equidad y en la adaptación de políticas educativas para reducir el peso de las desventajas de origen.Equity is a challenge that persist in schools globally and Portugal is no exception. Portugal has improved the average performance of students in PISA cycles, although inequalities related to socioeconomic status remain. This study aims to analyze the relationship between socioeconomic status and the academic performance of Portuguese students in PISA 2022. Using hierarchical linear models, the most significant variables at the student and school levels are analyzed in terms of performance in the three PISA competencies. Subsequently, the effect of the ESCS index on performance in mathematics, reading, and science is estimated, allowing us to observe how the slopes vary for each school. The steeper the slope, the greater the inequality of opportunity at that school. The results confirm a significant association between many contextual variables and performance, especially between socioeconomic status and performance, reflecting inequalities of opportunity in Portugal. These findings allow us to reflect on the importance of taking context into account in the analysis of equity and in the adaptation of educational policies to reduce the weight of disadvantages of origin
The House H4 at al Madam 1-Thuqeibah (Sharjah); a Singular Structure at an Iron Age Sttlement
No full textThe structure known as house H4 is located northeast the Central Sector of the site of al Madam 1-Thuqeibah (Sharjah, UAE); a basically agricultural and stockbreeding Iron Age village. Although the structure brought to light by the excavation of “House H4” was quite simple, its character seemed different from the rest of the village. Better building materials, pillars, a greater amount of fine, painted pottery, a pedestal, a sink, plastered walls, etc. …., all traits we do not find in other areas of the site. Could it be a place with a special meaning to this modest community?The structure known as house H4 is located northeast the Central Sector of the site of al Madam 1-Thuqeibah (Sharjah, UAE); a basically agricultural and stockbreeding Iron Age village. Although the structure brought to light by the excavation of “House H4” was quite simple, its character seemed different from the rest of the village. Better building materials, pillars, a greater amount of fine, painted pottery, a pedestal, a sink, plastered walls, etc. ...., all traits we do not find in other areas of the site. Could it be a place with a special meaning to this modest community
Ecofeminism, traditional knowledge and other old solutions for the new challenges of climate migration: seeds of the Prosopocene
No full textEl Antropoceno constituye un régimen de sentido que busca universalizar las causas y las consecuencias de una crisis civilizatoria provocada por modelos patriarcales, coloniales, productivistas y extractivistas. Su impacto, sin embargo, es radicalmente desigual: afecta más intensamente a territorios históricamente subalternizados y reproduce las lógicas que lo originaron. Frente al relato dominante, proponemos el concepto de Prosopoceno como categoría analítica inclusiva y horizonte político-ético que identifica territorios donde emergen otras formas de habitar y relacionarse con el mundo, sustentadas en vínculos de reciprocidad, cuidados, cooperación y saberes situados. Son territorios que experimentan dinámicas socioambientales y de recuperación y/o cambio cultural que demuestran que sistemas de vida otros pueden ofrecer futuro al sistema Tierra.
Para explorar el Prosopoceno, planteamos, en primer lugar, una propuesta metodológica orientada al análisis situado de sus territorios, iniciada con un estudio exploratorio de fuentes para identificar respuestas comunitarias y ecofeministas a las consecuencias del Antropoceno, así como de territorios que han preservado otras esencias con estas mimbres, especialmente en contextos marcados por las migraciones climáticas. Territorios campesinos afectados por el despojo, mujeres y comunidades indígenas o subalternas, organizadas en redes socioterritoriales, despliegan estrategias de resiliencia basadas en saberes ecológicos tradicionales. Estas prácticas desafían el paradigma de las soluciones tecnocráticas del Antropoceno y, al mismo tiempo, se ven condicionadas por las dinámicas de las relaciones internacionales.
La lectura crítica de estos sistemas territoriales, presentados como estudios de caso, pretende ser el inicio de una cartografía co-creada del Prosopoceno concebida como dispositivo relacional. Esta cartografía recoge “semillas” del Prosopoceno, gérmenes que podrían expandir propuestas que colocan la vida en el centro y buscan regenerar las prácticas y revertir los impactos del Antropoceno. Desde un enfoque ecofeminista decolonial y que revaloriza el conocimiento tradicional, este trabajo cuestiona los marcos epistemológicos de las relaciones internacionales y sirve de base para propuestas de acuerdos que reconozcan las interdependencias y las ecodependencias, los límites biofísicos y las sabidurías no hegemónicas.Introduction and objectives
The debate on the Anthropocene has become a central issue in the social sciences and, increasingly, in the field of international relations. This concept, originally formulated within the Earth sciences, has become established as a global signifier to describe the contemporary socio-ecological crisis. However, its apparent universality hides profound asymmetries: not all regions or populations experience the consequences of planetary disruption in the same way, nor do they contribute to it to the same degree. In many cases, the most severe impacts fall on historically colonized territories, peasant communities, and indigenous peoples, and particularly on women, who bear much of the burden of care work and food production in local systems.
Our article seeks to contribute to this debate from a dual perspective. On the one hand, we propose an ecofeminist and decolonial reading of the Anthropocene that highlights and values the practices, knowledge, and resistance that emerge on the margins of the global system. To this end, we introduce the concept of the Prosopocene, understood as an analytical horizon and a dialogical and participatory proposal that aims to map the spaces where relationships of care, reciprocity, and life-supporting practices are cultivated in the face of socioecological devastation. The term emphasizes the multiplicity of subjects, places, and practices that, far from being residual or peripheral, constitute genuine seeds of alternatives to the contemporary crisis.
The main objective of the article is, therefore, to propose a theoretical-analytical and methodological framework that allows us to rethink the global socioecological crisis from a post-Anthropocene paradigm.
Theoretical approach
The category of the Anthropocene has been widely questioned for its abstract and homogenizing nature. Against the idea of a single, undifferentiated humanity responsible for planetary collapse, several alternative formulations have attempted to nuance and complicate this narrative. Thus, Capitalocene emphasizes the central role of capitalism in socio-ecological destruction; Plantationocene draws attention to the extractivist and colonial logic of monocultures; Chthulucene proposes multispecies alliances to regenerate life; while other critical perspectives highlight the risks of technocratic solutions that reproduce the same extractivist logics that created the crisis. Our proposal falls within this field of conceptual dispute. The Prosopocene does not deny the material reality of global ecological alterations but rather emphasizes the need to recognize and map social, cultural, and political practices aimed at sustaining life and cultivating the commons. In contrast to the universalism of the Anthropocene, the Prosopocene brings multiplicity to the fore: there are places, territories, and communities where alternative seeds are emerging, and these are increasingly recognized both by academic research and by the agents who conceive and live them. Thus, the Prosopocene not only enriches critical vocabulary, but also introduces a conceptual framework that brings the relational, the situated, and the diverse to the fore. This framework draws on two major critical traditions. From ecofeminism, it emphasizes the centrality of care, interdependence, and the sustainability of life as organizing principles that challenge patriarchy, competitiveness, and productivism. From a decolonial perspective, it emphasizes the importance of recognizing epistemic plurality and valuing traditional ecological knowledge not as "remnants of the past" but as living forms of knowledge that provide crucial insights for just socioecological transitions. Both perspectives converge in questioning the dominant paradigm and proposing alternative horizons where people and other living beings occupy the center. Methodological approach Methodologically, the article combines bibliographic analysis with an exploration of digital sources. We begin with a review of multi- and interdisciplinary literature (based on social anthropology, geography, international relations, sociology, political ecology, and ecological humanities) to situate the critique of Anthropocene universalism. This review allows us to trace the universe of academic production and focus on the limits of theoretical frameworks, contrasting them with proposals from critical currents and with the empirical foundations that underpin them all. We then develop a comparative matrix of situated experiences, which we call "Seeds of the Prosopocene." This matrix is organized around criteria such as:
- The prominence of the ecofeminist and community approach.
- The use of traditional knowledge to deal with the effects of climate change.
- The incorporation of principles of material and energy circularity.
- Interactions with international actors (cooperation, trade, resource geopolitics).
- The construction of biophysical and social resilience in the face of the impacts of the Anthropocene.
This methodological proposal follows a logic of situated analysis, which recognizes the limitations of Western academic frameworks while opening to the integration of other epistemologies, practices, and narratives. The approach does not aim to establish another universal framework, but rather to highlight the plurality of experiences already underway, which offer valuable lessons for addressing the socio-ecological crisis.
Structure of the article
The article is organized into five main sections:
Critical introduction to the Anthropocene. This section presents the debates surrounding the Anthropocene and argues for the need to expand analytical frameworks beyond the homogenizing notion of "humanity" as a single geological agent.
Methodology
Anthropocene, international relations, climate migration, and Prosopocene. This section brings together the categories that give it its name and develops our conceptual proposal for the Prosopocene.
Epistemologies for a relational geopolitics: delimitation of criteria for the selection and classification of Prosopocene seeds. Here we operationalize our conceptual proposal, focused on the recognition of practices and knowledge that cultivate the commons and sustain life, in tension with the dominant anthropocentric logic and its narratives that obscure inequalities.
Comparative matrix of Prosopocene cases and seeds. Based on the literature review and online resources, this section constructs a matrix that identifies the previously defined criteria for resilience and resistance in a selection of cases. The matrix allows us to visualize how seeds of just socio-ecological transitions emerge in diverse contexts, ranging from women\u27s networks and multiscale peasant communities in contexts affected by the consequences of the Anthropocene, where dynamics such as climate migration, territorial dispossession, and the loss of essential goods for life are experienced.
Discussion. This section discusses the theoretical and political implications of our approach and proposes moving toward international agreements that prioritize socio-ecological justice and the sustainability of life. Emphasis is placed on how the Prosopocene can provide tools for rethinking international cooperation, territorial and environmental governance, and the management of the consequences of climate change. It recaps the advisability of launching a global participatory initiative to map the seeds of the Prosopocene as a tool for raising awareness and promoting good practices.
Conclusion. The final section summarizes the main findings of the article and argues for the need to shift the horizon of "anthropological solutions" (technocratic and universalist responses) toward collective and situated alternatives that can redesign the frameworks of international relations.
Main conclusions.
The article concludes that the Anthropocene, understood as a universal category, is insufficient to capture the complexity of the socio-ecological crisis. In contrast, we propose the Prosopocene as an analytical and ethical tool that allows us to recognize the diversity of practices of resistance and care that are emerging in different territories. These practices, from agroecology to women\u27s networks in vulnerable contexts, are not mere survival strategies, but genuine proposals for imagining another future, capable of guiding just socioecological transitions. The contribution to the field of international relations lies in broadening the post anthropocentric debate by incorporating ecofeminist and decolonial epistemologies that challenge the way we understand territories and their people, the ways we relate to others (understood broadly as all beings in the biosphere), especially in contexts located in the Global South. In doing so, the article opens up paths towards the construction of international agreements that go beyond the technocratic management of the crisis, which does not change the very logic that produced it, but rather promotes collective eco-solutions based on traditional knowledge, care practices, and respect for the biophysical limits of the planet
