Advertisement

Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 325–344 | Cite as

Politikwissenschaftliches Interpretieren des Anthropozäns – Zur Bedeutung interpretativer Politikforschung im Umgang mit Objektivität, Normativität und Performativität von Meta-Konzepten

  • Basil BornemannEmail author
  • Katharina Glaab
  • Lena Partzsch
Aufsatz

Zusammenfassung

Der Beitrag nimmt das Aufkommen der Rede über das Anthropozän in Politik und Politikwissenschaft zum Anlass, über Probleme politikwissenschaftlichen Interpretierens von Meta-Konzepten zu reflektieren. Ausgehend von der Annahme, dass politikwissenschaftliche Analyse immer interpretativ ist, werden drei problematische Tendenzen der bestehenden politikwissenschaftlichen Praxis des Interpretierens des Anthropozäns aufgezeigt: erstens die verobjektivierende Übernahme naturwissenschaftlicher Diagnosen, zweitens die mit Krisendiagnosen verbundene Krypto-Normativität und drittens die performative Rückwirkung problematischer politikwissenschaftlicher Anthropozän-Interpretationen auf die politische Praxis. Ausgehend von dieser Analyse werden die Konturen einer explizit interpretativ orientierten Politikforschung umrissen, die die Probleme der gegenwärtigen politikwissenschaftlichen Interpretationspraxis des Anthropozäns adressieren kann, aufgrund ihres kritischen Potentials jedoch selbst ins Kreuzfeuer der Kritik geraten könnte.

Political science interpretations of the Anthropocene: The relevance of interpretative political research in dealing with objectivity, normativity and performativity of meta-concepts

Abstract

This article takes up the emergence of the “Anthropocene” in politics and political science to reflect upon problems of political science interpretations of meta-concepts. Based on the assumption that political science analysis is always interpretative, three problematic tendencies of existing practices of interpreting the Anthropocene are pointed out: first, the objectifying adoption of natural science diagnoses; second, the crypto normativity related to prevailing crisis diagnoses; and, third, the performative repercussions that problematic political science interpretations of the Anthropocene have on political practice. Based on this analysis, the contours of an explicitly interpretative political research of the Anthropocene are outlined, which can address these problems, but due to its critical potential may itself get into the crossfire of critique.

Notes

Danksagung

Für zahlreiche kritische und weiterführende Rückmeldungen zu einer ersten Version des Beitrags bedanken wir uns bei Franziska Müller und bei allen anderen Teilnehmer*innen des Autor*innenworkshops zum Thema „Was bedeutet Interpretieren? Interpretative Verfahren in der Politikforschung“ am 15. und 16. November 2018 in Lüneburg. Ferner danken wir den Herausgeber*innen des Sonderheftes für die anregende Initiative und Rahmung des Themas sowie für die Organisation des Workshops.

Literatur

  1. Arias-Maldonado, Manuel. 2016. Nature and the anthropocene. The sense of an ending? In Environmental politics and governance in the anthropocene. Institutions and legitimacy in a complex world, Hrsg. Philipp H. Pattberg, Fariborz Zelli, 31–46. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Baskin, Jeremy. 2015. Paradigm dressed as epoch: the ideology of the anthropocene. Environmental Values 24(1):9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, Silke. 2019. Coproducing knowledge and politics of the anthropocene: the case of the future earth program. In Anthropocene encounters: new directions in green political thinking, Hrsg. Eva Lövbrand, Frank Biermann, 191–211. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bevir, Mark, und R.A.W. Rhodes. 2006. Defending interpretation. European Political Science 5(1):69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biermann, Frank. 2002. „Green Global Governance“: Weltpolitik im Anthropozän. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 11(1):38–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biermann, Frank. 2014a. Earth system governance. World politics in the anthropocene. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biermann, Frank. 2014b. The anthropocene: a governance perspective. The anthropocene Review 1(1):57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biermann, Frank, Xuemei Bai, Ninad Bondre, Wendy Broadgate, Chen-Tung Arthur Chen, Opha Pauline Dube, Jan Willem Erisman, Marion Glaser, Sandra van der Hel, Maria Carmen Lemos, Sybil Seitzinger, und Karen C. Seto. 2016. Down to earth: contextualizing the anthropocene. Global Environmental Change 39:341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bornemann, Basil. 2014. Policy-Integration und Nachhaltigkeit: Integrative Politik in der Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie der deutschen Bundesregierung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bornemann, Basil. 2019. The anthropocene and governance: critical reflections on conceptual relations. In The anthropocene debate and political science, Hrsg. Thomas Hickmann, Lena Partzsch, Philipp H. Pattberg, und Sabine Weiland, 48–66. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Bornemann, Basil, Philipp Lange, und Paul Burger. 2019. Toward systematic understandings of Sustainability governance. A conceptual meta-framework. In Sustainability governance and hierarchy, Hrsg. Philippe Hamman. London: Routledge. im Erscheinen.Google Scholar
  12. Burke, Anthony, Stefanie Fishel, Audra Mitchell, Simon Dalby, und Daniel J. Levine. 2016. Planet politics: a manifesto from the end of IR. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 44(3):499–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2009. The climate of history: four theses. Critical Inquiry 35(2):197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Di Chiro, Giovanna. 2016. Environmental justice and the anthropocene meme. In The oxford handbook of environmental political theory, Hrsg. Teena Gabrielson, Cheryl Hall, John M. Meyer, David Schlosberg, und Giovanna Di Chiro, 362–381. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Davies, Jeremy. 2016. The birth of the anthropocene. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Davis, Heather, und Zoe Todd. 2017. On the importance of a date, or, decolonizing the anthropocene. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies 16(4):761–780.Google Scholar
  17. Dobson, Andrew. 2007. Green political thought. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dryzek, John S. 2013. The politics of the earth: environmental discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dryzek, John S. 2016. Institutions for the anthropocene: governance in a changing earth system. British Journal of Political Science 46(4):937–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eckersley, Robyn. 2017. Geopolitan democracy in the anthropocene. Political Studies 65(4):983–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Engelkamp, Stephan, und Katharina Glaab. 2015. Writing norms. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 40(3–4):201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischer, Frank. 1995. Evaluating public policy. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Fischer, Frank. 2003. Refraiming Public Policy: discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Galaz, Victor. 2014. Global environmental governance, technology and politics: the anthropocene gap. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Galaz, Victor. 2019. Time and politics in the anthropocene: too fast, too slow? In Anthropocene encounters: new directions in green political thinking, Hrsg. Eva Lövbrand, Frank Biermann, 109–127. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Görg, Christoph. 2016. Zwischen Tagesgeschäft und Erdgeschichte. Die unterschiedlichen Zeitskalen in der Debatte um das Anthropozän. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 25(1):9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hermwille, Lukas. 2019. Global climate governance as boundaryobject: making the meaning of the anthropocene. In The anthropocene debate and political science, Hrsg. Thomas Hickmann, Lena Partzsch, Philipp H. Pattberg, und Sabine Weiland, 103–123. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Hickmann, Thomas, Lena Partzsch, Philipp Pattberg, und Sabine Weiland. 2019a. Introduction: a political science perspective on the anthropocene. In The anthropocene debate and political science, Hrsg. Thomas Hickmann, Lena Partzsch, Philipp H. Pattberg, und Sabine Weiland, 1–12. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Hickmann, Thomas, Lena Partzsch, Philipp H. Pattberg, und Sabine Weiland (Hrsg.). 2019b. The anthropocene debate and political science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Höhne, Chris. 2019. From ‘talking the talk’ to ‘walking the walk’? Multi-level global governance of the anthropocene in Indonesia. In The anthropocene debate and political science, Hrsg. Thomas Hickmann, Lena Partzsch, Philipp H. Pattberg, und Sabine Weiland, 124–145. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Hoppe, Robert, und Hal K. Colebatch. 2016. The role of theories in policy studies and policy work: selective affinities between representation and performation? European Policy Analysis 2(1):121–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hornborg, Alf. 2015. The political ecology of technocene: uncovering ecologically unequal exchange in the world-system. In The anthropocene and the global environmental crisis. Rethinking modernity in a new epoch, Hrsg. Clive Hamilton, Christophe Bonneuil, und François Gemenne, 57–67. London, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. IPPR. 2019. This is a crisis: Facing up to the age of environmental breakdown. https://www.ippr.org/files/2019-02/this-is-a-crisis-feb19.pdf. Zugegriffen: 24. Apr. 2019.Google Scholar
  34. Jahn, Thomas, Diana Hummel, und Engelbert Schramm. 2015. Nachhaltige Wissenschaft im Anthropozän. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 24(2):92–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jänicke, Martin. 2005. Trend-setters in environmental policy: the character and role of pioneer countries. European Environment 15(2):129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Latour, Bruno. 2004. Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry 30(2):225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. LeCain, Timothy J. 2016. Heralding a new humanism: the radical implications of Chakrabarty’s “four theses”. In Whose anthropocene? Revisiting Dipesh Chakrabarty’s “four theses”, Hrsg. Robert Emmet, Thomas Lekan, 15–20.Google Scholar
  38. Lewis, Simon L., und Mark A. Maslin. 2015. Defining the anthropocene. Nature 519(7542):171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lövbrand, Eva, Silke Beck, Jason Chilvers, Tim Forsyth, Johan Hedrén, Mike Hulme, Rolf Lidskog, und Eleftheria Vasileiadou. 2015. Who speaks for the future of Earth?: How critical social science can extend the conversation on the anthropocene. Global Environmental Change 32:211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lövbrand, Eva, Johannes Stripple, und Bo Wiman. 2009. Earth system governmentality. Global Environmental Change 19(1):7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Malm, A., und A. Hornborg. 2014. The geology of mankind?: A critique of the anthropocene narrative. The Anthropocene Review 1(1):62–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McAfee, Kathleen. 2016. The politics of nature in the anthropocene. In Whose anthropocene? Revisiting Dipesh Chakrabarty’s “four theses”, Hrsg. Robert Emmet, Thomas Lekan, 65–72.Google Scholar
  43. Meyer, John M. 2016. Politics in—but not of—the anthropocene. In Whose anthropocene? Revisiting Dipesh Chakrabarty’s “four theses”, Hrsg. Robert Emmet, Thomas Lekan, 47–51.Google Scholar
  44. Mitchell, Audra. 2015. Decolonising the anthropocene. https://worldlyir.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/decolonising-the-Anthropocene/. Zugegriffen: 24. Apr. 2019.Google Scholar
  45. Müller, Franziska. 2019. International theory in the anthropocene: moving beyond species, state and governance. In The anthropocene debate and political science, Hrsg. Thomas Hickmann, Lena Partzsch, Philipp H. Pattberg, und Sabine Weiland, 67–82. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Münch, Sybille. 2016. Interpretative Policy-Analyse: Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nullmeier, Frank. 1997. Interpretative Ansätze in der Politikwissenschaft. In Theorieentwicklung in der Politikwissenschaft. Eine Zwischenbilanz, Hrsg. Arthur Benz, Wolfgang Seibel, 101–144. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  48. Pattberg, Philipp, und Fariborz Zelli. 2016a. Global environmental governance in the anthropocene: An introduction. In Environmental politics and governance in the anthropocene. Institutions and legitimacy in a complex world, Hrsg. Philipp H. Pattberg, Fariborz Zelli, 1–12. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Pattberg, Philipp H., und Fariborz Zelli (Hrsg.). 2016b. Environmental politics and governance in the anthropocene: Institutions and legitimacy in a complex world. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Rockström, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Asa Persson, 3rd F. Stuart Chapin, Eric F. Lambin, Timothy M. Lenton, Marten Scheffer, Carl Folke, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Bjorn Nykvist, Cynthia A. de Wit, Terry Hughes, Sander van der Leeuw, Henning Rodhe, Sverker Sorlin, Peter K. Snyder, Robert Costanza, Uno Svedin, Malin Falkenmark, Louise Robert W.Corell Karlberg, Victoria J. Fabry, James Hansen, Brian Walker, Diana Liverman, Katherine Richardson, Paul Crutzen, und Jonathan A. Foley. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461(7263):472–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schwindenhammer, Sandra. 2019. Agricultural governance in the anthropocene: a research agenda. In The anthropocene debate and political science, Hrsg. Thomas Hickmann, Lena Partzsch, Philipp H. Pattberg, und Sabine Weiland, 146–163. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Soeffner, Hans-Georg, und Ronald Hitzler. 1994. Qualitatives Vorgehen – „Interpretation“. In Methodologische Grundlagen der Psychologie, Hrsg. Theo Herrmann, Werner H. Tack, 98–136. Göttingen, Seattle: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  53. Steffen, Will, Wendy Broadgate, Lisa Deutsch, Owen Gaffney, und Cornelia Ludwig. 2015. The trajectory of the anthropocene: the great acceleration. The Anthropocene Review 2(1):81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Steffen, Will, Jacques Grinevald, Paul Crutzen, und John McNeill. 2011a. The anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences 369(1938):842–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Steffen, Will, Åsa Persson, Lisa Deutsch, Jan Zalasiewicz, Mark Williams, Katherine Richardson, Carole Crumley, Paul Crutzen, Carl Folke, Line Gordon, Mario Molina, Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Johan Rockström, Marten Scheffer, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, und Uno Svedin. 2011b. The anthropocene. From global change to planetary stewardship. Ambio 40(7):739–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Steffen, W.L., A. Sanderson, P. D. Tyson Jill Jäger, P.A. Matson, B. Moore III, F. Oldfield, K. Richardson, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, B.L. Turner II, und R.J. Wasson. 2005. Global change and the earth system: a planet under pressure. Berlin/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  57. Stirling, Andy. 2015a. Reigning back the anthropocene is hard—but earth’s worth it. http://steps-centre.org/blog/reigning-back-the-anthropocene-is-hard-but-earths-worth-it/. Zugegriffen: 26. März 2019.Google Scholar
  58. Stirling, Andy. 2015b. Time to rei(g)n back the anthropocene? http://steps-centre.org/blog/time-to-reign-back-the-anthropocene/. Zugegriffen: 26. März 2019.Google Scholar
  59. Taylor, Bron Raymond (Hrsg.). 1995. Ecological resistance movements: the global emergence of radical and popular environmentalism. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  60. Tickell, Crispin. 2011. Societal responses to the anthropocene. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences 369(1938):926–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tremmel, Jörg. 2019. The anthropocene concept as a wake-up call for reforming democracy. In The anthropocene debate and political science, Hrsg. Thomas Hickmann, Lena Partzsch, Philipp H. Pattberg, und Sabine Weiland, 219–236. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Unmüßig, Barbara. 2018. Mensch macht Epoche. umwelt aktuell 2:2–3.Google Scholar
  63. Voss, Jan-Peter, und Richard Freeman (Hrsg.). 2016. Knowing governance: the epistemic construction of political order. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  64. Weißpflug, Maike. 2019. A natural history of the 21st century: rethinking the anthropocene narrative with Arendt and Adorno. In The anthropocene debate and political science, Hrsg. Thomas Hickmann, Lena Partzsch, Philipp H. Pattberg, und Sabine Weiland, 15–30. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Wight, Colin. 2018. Post-truth, postmodernism and alternative facts. New Perspectives 26(3):17–29.Google Scholar
  66. Wissenburg, Marcel. 2016. The anthropocene and the body ecologic. In Environmental politics and governance in the anthropocene. Institutions and legitimacy in a complex world, Hrsg. Philipp H. Pattberg, Fariborz Zelli, 15–30. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Yanow, Dvora. 2000. Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yanow, Dvora, und Peregrine Schwartz-Shea. 2006. Introduction. In Interpretation and method. Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn, Hrsg. Dvora Yanow, Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, xi–xxvii. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  69. Zalasiewicz, Jan A. 2009. The earth after us: what legacy will humans leave in the rocks? Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Zalasiewicz, Jan A. 2015. Die Einstiegsfrage: Wann hat das Anthropozän begonnen? In Das Anthropozän. Ein Zwischenbericht, Hrsg. Bernd Scherer, Jürgen Renn, 160–180. Berlin: Matthes & Seitz.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) and the Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Basil Bornemann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Katharina Glaab
    • 2
  • Lena Partzsch
    • 3
  1. 1.Universität BaselBaselSchweiz
  2. 2.Norwegian University of Life SciencesÅsNorwegen
  3. 3.Universität FreiburgFreiburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations