Portal de revistas electrónicas de la UAM (Univ. Autónoma de Madrid)
Not a member yet
14423 research outputs found
Sort by
¿Pública o Privada? Comparación entre Dimensiones de la Calidad en Dos Redes de Educación Infantil 0-3
No full textPrevious research shows that access alone is not enough to ensure the expected benefits of Early Childhood Education. Therefore, this paper analyses different conditions of educability following the growth of enrolments rates in Spanish 0-3 Early Childhood Education. It is essential to deeply understand this issue, particularly in a context characterised by a diversity of providers, with a slight dominance of private provision. By comparing two 0-3 networks – a public municipal network in Barcelona-Catalonia and a private one in Andalusia – the paper reveals how the ownership and management of schools can affect the unequal development of five dimensions of quality at this stage: staff training and working conditions, team coordination, and the treatment offered and allowed to families. The results come from two case studies with a qualitative strategy: 39 interviews. Public schools would demonstrate superior conditions in terms of educability across the five dimensions. However, what this article achieves is, first, to broaden perspectives on quality by analysing the experiences of professionals in schools and, second, to reveal some factors and interdependencies that give rise to differences in quality between public and private establishments that other studies have already attempted to measureInvestigaciones previas sobre educación temprana concluyen que no basta con acceder para que se materialicen sus beneficios esperados. Este artículo analiza distintas condiciones de educabilidad tras el crecimiento de matriculaciones en la educación infantil 0-3 española. Mayor conocimiento sobre esta cuestión resulta esencial en un contexto marcado por la diversidad de proveedores ligeramente dominado por la oferta privada. Mediante la comparación de dos redes de educación infantil 0-3 –una pública municipal de Barcelona-Cataluña y otra privada extendida en Andalucía– el artículo revela cómo puede afectar la titularidad y gestión de las escuelas al desarrollo desigual de cinco dimensiones de la calidad en esta etapa: condiciones laborales de las plantillas, posibilidades de ejercicio de la función directiva, de coordinación de equipos y de proyectos educativos, y relaciones con las familias. Los resultados provienen de dos estudios de casos cualitativos: 39 entrevistas. Las escuelas públicas reunirían, en las cinco dimensiones, mejores condiciones de educabilidad. Aunque lo que consigue este artículo es, primero, ampliar miradas sobre la calidad al analizar las experiencias de profesionales a pie de escuelas y, segundo, revelar algunos factores e interdependencias engendradoras de las diferencias de calidad entre establecimientos públicos y privados que otros estudios ya trataron de medir
The female subject and the transformation of space in Aurora de España: perspectives of modernity and tradition in the narrative of Concha Espina
No full textEl objetivo de este trabajo es estudiar la relación entre el espacio y el sujeto femenino en la novela Aurora de España de Concha Espina, publicada por primera vez en 1927 y en 1955 en su última versión. Con este propósito, se propone analizar la obra de Espina desde el contexto de la Edad de Plata, período en que los discursos feministas comienzan a ganar fuerza en España manifestando tendencias divergentes. En este sentido, Concha Espina destaca como una figura de gran interés para evidenciar los cambios y las contradicciones de una época histórica especialmente convulsa. El foco del análisis será su narrativa anterior a la Guerra Civil (1936-1939) y a su evolución ideológica, cuya defensa de la emancipación de la mujer se inserta dentro de la transformación de las dinámicas espaciales a través de la resignificación del espacio tanto público como doméstico.The aim of this paper is to analyse the relationship between space and the female subject in Concha Espina\u27s novel Aurora de España, first published in 1927 and in 1955 in its latest version. To this end, we propose to study Espina\u27s work in the context of the Silver Age, a period in which feminist discourses began to gain strength in Spain, manifesting divergent tendencies. In this regard, Concha Espina stands out as a figure of great interest for highlighting the changes and contradictions of a particularly convulsive historical period. The focus of the analysis will be her production before the Spanish Civil War and her ideological evolution, whose defence of women\u27s emancipation is inserted within the transformation of spatial dynamics through the re-signification of both public and domestic space
LA INTRODUCCIÓN DE LA «TÉCNICA» EN LA POLÍTICA: ALGUNAS REFLEXIONES SOBRE LA TECNOCRACIA Y LOS TECNÓCRATAS
No full textMany voices argue for technocracy as the ideal solution to periods of political turmoil. It is at such times that citizens demand the expertise, capability and objectivity endowed, in principle, by technocrats. While it seems difficult to contest the benefits of a technocratic system, a deeper analysis reveals that, at its highest level, technocracy could not only undermine the democratic standards of a country but even obliterate democracy itself.Muchas voces defienden la tecnocracia como la solución ideal para los periodos de agitación política. Es en esos momentos cuando los ciudadanos demandan la pericia, la capacidad y la objetividad que, en principio, asiste a los tecnócratas. Aunque parece difícil rebatir las ventajas de un sistema tecnocrático, un análisis más profundo permite advertir que, elevada a su máxima expresión, la tecnocracia podría no solo deteriorar la calidad democrática de un país, sino incluso eliminar la democracia en sí misma
The Anthropocene and a thousand other names: the challenge of interpreting the (un)known
No full textEste 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 research 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, responsibilities, 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 analytical 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 tensions, 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 Anthropocene. Beyond the term itself, alternative denominations underscore the contestations over causality, 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 Anthropocene 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 responsibility 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 reinterpreted 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 women, 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 Anthropocene is not simply about humanity as a collective species but about deeply differentiated and historically 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 solidarity. By emphasizing the categories of gender and race, we aim to foster a more inclusive and intersectional 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
Living Well in the face of the Anthropocene: horizons and contradictions
No full textEl presente artículo analiza el Vivir Bien y la diplomacia de los pueblos como respuestas posantropocéntricas frente a los desafíos del Antropoceno, destacando sus aportes conceptuales, sus límites operativos y su potencial para articular transformaciones en políticas públicas e internacionales. El estudio se sitúa en el marco de las críticas al Antropoceno —capitaloceno, occidentaloceno y plantationoceno— y examina en qué medida las cosmovisiones andinas y amazónicas de Bolivia constituyen horizontes civilizatorios alternativos frente a los modelos de desarrollo dominantes.
Metodológicamente, se adopta un enfoque cualitativo basado en análisis documental y crítico de fuentes académicas, filosóficas, normativas y discursivas. Se revisan textos fundacionales del debate sobre el Antropoceno, aportes de la ecología política y de las Relaciones Internacionales críticas, así como marcos normativos relevantes, entre ellos la Constitución Política del Estado boliviano y la Declaración Universal de los Derechos de la Madre Tierra. Se integran también referencias empíricas seleccionadas por su relevancia conceptual —como conflictos socioambientales y tensiones extractivistas en Bolivia— para contrastar el potencial transformador del Vivir Bien con su limitada implementación práctica.
El artículo se organiza en seis secciones. La primera delimita el marco conceptual del Antropoceno y sus principales debates críticos. La segunda desarrolla el Vivir Bien como paradigma posantropocéntrico, destacando sus bases filosófico-cosmológicas y su crítica al modelo de modernidad. La tercera examina su incorporación normativa y discursiva en Bolivia y Ecuador. La cuarta sección introduce la diplomacia de los pueblos como propuesta descolonial y ecológica en las relaciones internacionales. La quinta discute la tensión entre potencia simbólica e impotencia operativa del Vivir Bien, mientras que la sexta propone lineamientos para una operativización posantropocéntrica orientada a la institucionalidad ambiental, la participación comunitaria y la articulación de saberes.
En conjunto, el artículo sostiene que el Vivir Bien y la diplomacia de los pueblos aportan marcos conceptuales indispensables para repensar el Antropoceno desde el Sur Global y ampliar el campo de las Relaciones Internacionales críticas. No obstante, se evidencia que su densidad simbólica contrasta con limitaciones operativas derivadas de la persistencia del extractivismo y las tensiones estatales. Se concluye que el desafío central consiste en repolitizar estas propuestas y dotarlas de coherencia práctica para consolidarlas como estrategias críticas y situadas de transición civilizatoria frente a la crisis ecosocial contemporánea.This article analyzes the paradigm of Living Well (Vivir Bien) and the notion of the diplomacy of the peoples as post-Anthropocenic responses to the socio-ecological challenges of the Anthropocene. It seeks to demonstrate both their symbolic power and their operational limitations, while identifying pathways through which they may be transformed into coherent strategies of civilizational transition. The central objective is to examine how these proposals contribute to the construction of post-Anthropocenic horizons capable of transcending the contradictions of modernity, the extractivist model of development, and the state-centric logic of international relations. The argument advanced here is that, despite their fragility in practice, Living Well and the diplomacy of the peoples constitute indispensable contributions to global debates on the Anthropocene, offering conceptual and ethical tools for imagining forms of coexistence that move beyond anthropocentrism and emerge from the Global South.
Methodologically, the article relies on documentary and critical analysis of multiple sources, including theoretical literature on the Anthropocene and its critiques; philosophical writings on Andean notions of relationality, complementarity, and reciprocity; constitutional texts from Bolivia and Ecuador; and political speeches, international declarations, and reports on socio-environmental conflicts. This methodological approach enables the integration of theoretical reflection with empirically grounded examples and supports dialogue across political ecology, critical international relations, and Andean thought. Such interdisciplinarity is essential, given that the Anthropocene is not only a geological term but also a political and cultural narrative shaped by diverse epistemologies and contested historical processes.
The theoretical framework is organized around three main axes. The first concerns debates on the Anthropocene, originally formulated by Crutzen and Stoermer (2000) to describe the human species as a geological force capable of altering planetary systems. The article reviews how this concept has been contested through alternative formulations such as the Capitalocene, which foregrounds capitalism as the true driver of ecological devastation; the Occidentalocene, which attributes the crisis to the Western worldview that commodified and dominated the more-than-human world; and the Plantationocene, which highlights the foundational role of plantation regimes in shaping the modern industrial system and its ecological impacts. These critiques reveal that the Anthropocene is not a neutral scientific category, but a contested field reflecting power asymmetries and historical inequalities.
The second axis is the philosophical and political elaboration of Living Well, articulated as Suma Qamaña in Aymara and Sumak Kawsay in Quechua. In contrast to “living better,” associated with consumption and accumulation, Living Well constitutes a civilizational horizon centered on communal life among humans, the natural world, and spiritual beings. Built upon principles of reciprocity, relationality, and complementarity, it recognizes Pachamama not as an exploitable resource but as a living subject endowed with rights. This paradigm represents a radical critique of modern development, rejecting anthropocentrism, infinite economic growth, and cultural homogenization, while resonating with contemporary more-than-human ontologies in anthropology and philosophy.
The third axis draws from critical international relations, which question the state-centric, Eurocentric, and anthropocentric assumptions of the discipline. Building on authors such as Cox, Tickner, Walker, and Inayatullah and Blaney, the article shows how the diplomacy of the peoples—an approach inspired by Living Well—offers a decolonial and ecological alternative to conventional understandings of international relations. This perspective expands diplomacy beyond the actions of states to include communities, Indigenous nations, and, in some cases, ecosystems themselves as relevant actors in global politics.
Structurally, the article develops its argument in six sections. The first introduces the Anthropocene and the conceptual debates that have generated post-Anthropocenic proposals. The second examines Living Well as a paradigm that challenges the core premises of modernity and development. The third analyzes the constitutionalization of Living Well in Bolivia and Ecuador and its international projection through initiatives such as the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth. The fourth elaborates the diplomacy of the peoples as a novel form of international engagement centered on life, reciprocity, and ecological justice rather than power and competition. The fifth section critically assesses the tensions between the symbolic discourse of these paradigms and their practical implementation, emphasizing the persistence of extractivism, weak environmental governance, and institutional constraints. The sixth section proposes guidelines for a post-Anthropocenic operationalization of Living Well and the diplomacy of the peoples, suggesting innovations in institutional design, community participation, and the articulation of diverse knowledges.
The empirical discussion focuses primarily on Bolivia, where the contrast between symbolic power and operational weakness is particularly evident. The 2009 Constitution incorporated Indigenous moral principles and established Living Well as an ethical horizon, while Bolivia promoted the Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth at the United Nations and convened the Cochabamba People’s Summit on Climate Change. However, domestic policies simultaneously facilitated expanded agricultural frontiers, enabled large-scale extractive projects, and weakened environmental institutions. The TIPNIS highway conflict (2011), recurring Amazonian forest fires, and mercury contamination in rivers exemplify the gap between international discourse and national practice. These contradictions demonstrate how alternative paradigms may be co-opted or emptied of content when not accompanied by strong institutions and genuine political commitment.
Nevertheless, the article does not dismiss these paradigms. Instead, it argues that their contradictions underscore the need to repoliticize them. Living Well and the diplomacy of the peoples must be understood not as utopian slogans but as critical and situated strategies of civilizational transition. This requires consolidating autonomous environmental institutions with meaningful Indigenous participation, establishing binding mechanisms for community engagement in international negotiations, and articulating Indigenous knowledges with political ecology and critical academic research. Comparative examples—such as the recognition of rivers as legal subjects in Colombia or community-based environmental governance in Costa Rica—demonstrate that operationalization is possible when legal innovation and community participation converge.
The study’s findings can be summarized in three points. First, Living Well and the diplomacy of the peoples enrich global debates on the Anthropocene by offering perspectives from the Global South that challenge universalist and Eurocentric assumptions. Second, their incorporation into constitutions and international forums represents an epistemic rupture that validates Indigenous ontologies as legitimate frameworks for political and legal organization. Third, despite these advances, the gap between rhetoric and practice remains deep, revealing the structural constraints posed by extractivism, dependency, and weak institutional capacity.
The implications are both theoretical and practical. Theoretically, the article contributes to political ecology and critical international relations by demonstrating how Indigenous worldviews can inform global governance. Practically, it offers concrete proposals for institutional design and participatory mechanisms capable of enhancing ecological justice and sovereignty in the Global South. This dual contribution highlights the importance of treating non-Western paradigms not merely as symbolic alternatives but as sources of practical innovation in environmental governance and international politics.
In conclusion, the article argues that Living Well and the diplomacy of the peoples represent indispensable contributions to rethinking the Anthropocene and imagining post-Anthropocenic futures. Their symbolic richness provides ethical guidance and cultural legitimacy, while their contradictions reveal the challenges of implementing civilizational alternatives in contexts dominated by extractivism and global dependency. Far from being romantic ideals, these paradigms embody the possibility of constructing plural, just, and sustainable worlds from the South, grounded in reciprocity, relationality, and the recognition of the intrinsic value of life. Bridging the gap between rhetoric and practice will require institutional strengthening, community participation, and the articulation of diverse knowledges. Only then can Living Well and the diplomacy of the peoples evolve from rhetorical resources into effective strategies for civilizational transition amid the socio-ecological crisis of our time