IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i7p2617-d337148.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Domination, Power, Supremacy: Confronting Anthropolitics with Ecological Realism

Author

Listed:
  • Toni Ruuska

    (Department of Economics and Management, University of Helsinki, 00500 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Pasi Heikkurinen

    (Department of Economics and Management, University of Helsinki, 00500 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Kristoffer Wilén

    (Department of Marketing, Hanken School of Economics, 00100 Helsinki, Finland)

Abstract

In this article, we study politics as domination. From our point of view, domination, especially in the Anthropocene, has had two vital components—power and supremacy. In order to dominate, one has to have power over others. In addition, the politics of domination, such as colonial oppression of Latin America, has required reasoning, justification, and legitimation, often connected to superiority (because of religion, society, or civilization) from the oppressor’s end. Past and present political ideologies and programs, such as colonialism, imperialism, but also welfare state capitalism, neoliberalism and increasingly popular Green New Deal are examples of what we call “anthropolitics”, an anthropocentric approach to politics based on domination, power, and supremacist exploitation. In contrast to the prevailing anthropolitics, this article discusses post-Anthropocene politics, characterized by localization and decentralization, as well as a steep reduction of matter–energy throughput by introducing a theoretical frame called ecological realism.

Suggested Citation

  • Toni Ruuska & Pasi Heikkurinen & Kristoffer Wilén, 2020. "Domination, Power, Supremacy: Confronting Anthropolitics with Ecological Realism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-20, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:7:p:2617-:d:337148
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2617/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2617/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Buch-Hansen, Hubert & Koch, Max, 2019. "Degrowth through income and wealth caps?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 264-271.
    2. Paul J. Crutzen, 2002. "Geology of mankind," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6867), pages 23-23, January.
    3. Karl Johan Bonnedahl & Maria José Caramujo, 2019. "Beyond an absolving role for sustainable development: Assessing consumption as a basis for sustainable societies," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 61-68, January.
    4. Gowdy, John & Krall, Lisi, 2013. "The ultrasocial origin of the Anthropocene," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 137-147.
    5. Daniel Bailey, 2015. "The Environmental Paradox of the Welfare State: The Dynamics of Sustainability," New Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 793-811, December.
    6. Heikkurinen, Pasi & Ruuska, Toni & Wilén, Kristoffer & Ulvila, Marko, 2019. "The Anthropocene exit: Reconciling discursive tensions on the new geological epoch," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ossi I. Ollinaho & V. P. J. Arponen, 2020. "Incomegetting and Environmental Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, May.
    2. Pasi Heikkurinen & Toni Ruuska & Anu Valtonen & Outi Rantala, 2020. "Time and Mobility after the Anthropocene," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-5, June.
    3. Polewsky, Max & Hankammer, Stephan & Kleer, Robin & Antons, David, 2024. "Degrowth vs. Green Growth. A computational review and interdisciplinary research agenda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rachel Mazac & Hanna L. Tuomisto, 2020. "The Post-Anthropocene Diet: Navigating Future Diets for Sustainable Food Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Mastini, Riccardo & Kallis, Giorgos & Hickel, Jason, 2021. "A Green New Deal without growth?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    3. Vogel, Jefim & Guerin, Gauthier & O'Neill, Daniel W. & Steinberger, Julia K., 2024. "Safeguarding livelihoods against reductions in economic output," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    4. Herrmann-Pillath, Carsten, 2015. "Energy, growth, and evolution: Towards a naturalistic ontology of economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 432-442.
    5. Heikkurinen, Pasi & Ruuska, Toni & Wilén, Kristoffer & Ulvila, Marko, 2019. "The Anthropocene exit: Reconciling discursive tensions on the new geological epoch," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Jiaxing Cui & Xuesong Kong & Jing Chen & Jianwei Sun & Yuanyuan Zhu, 2021. "Spatially Explicit Evaluation and Driving Factor Identification of Land Use Conflict in Yangtze River Economic Belt," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-24, January.
    7. Tommaso Luzzati & Angela Parenti & Tommaso Rughi, 2017. "Spatial error regressions for testing the Cancer-EKC," Discussion Papers 2017/218, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    8. Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk, 2011. "Climate change and interdisciplinarity: a co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 525-550, June.
    9. Tancrède Voituriez, 2020. "The quest for green welfare state in developing countries," Working Papers hal-02876972, HAL.
    10. J. Park & T. P. Seager & P. S. C. Rao & M. Convertino & I. Linkov, 2013. "Integrating Risk and Resilience Approaches to Catastrophe Management in Engineering Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(3), pages 356-367, March.
    11. Anne P. M. Velenturf & Phil Purnell, 2017. "Resource Recovery from Waste: Restoring the Balance between Resource Scarcity and Waste Overload," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-17, September.
    12. Damien Bazin & Sylvie Ferrari & Richard B. Howarth, 2021. "Introducing Environmental Ethics into Economic Analysis: Some Insights from Hans Jonas' Imperative of Responsibility," GREDEG Working Papers 2021-05, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    13. Clement Allan Tisdell & Serge Svizzero, 2016. "Different Behavioral Explanations of the Neolithic Transition from Foraging to Agriculture: A Review," Working Papers hal-02147758, HAL.
    14. Ethan Gordon & Federico Davila & Chris Riedy, 2022. "Transforming landscapes and mindscapes through regenerative agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 809-826, June.
    15. Røpke, Inge, 2020. "Econ 101—In need of a sustainability transition," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    16. Kotval-K, Zeenat & Vojnovic, Igor, 2016. "A socio-ecological exploration into urban form: The environmental costs of travel," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 87-98.
    17. Luzzati, Tommaso & Orsini, Marco & Gucciardi, Gianluca, 2018. "A multiscale reassessment of the Environmental Kuznets Curve for energy and CO2 emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 612-621.
    18. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Dante Di Matteo, 2020. "Climate Change and Social Perception: A Case Study in Southern Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-24, August.
    19. Buch-Hansen, Hubert & Nesterova, Iana, 2021. "Towards a science of deep transformations: Initiating a dialogue between degrowth and critical realism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    20. García-García, Pablo & Buendía, Luis & Carpintero, Óscar, 2022. "Welfare regimes as enablers of just energy transitions: Revisiting and testing the hypothesis of synergy for Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:7:p:2617-:d:337148. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.