- Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
- Doerthe Rosenow is Lecturer in International Relations in the Department of War Studies at King's College London. She... moreDoerthe Rosenow is Lecturer in International Relations in the Department of War Studies at King's College London. She received her PhD and MA likewise from the KCL Department of War Studies, and her first degree (Mag.Art.) from the University of Muenster/Germany. Before (re-)joining KCL, she was Reader at Oxford Brookes University and, prior to that, Lecturer at Royal Holloway University of London. Her research is interdisciplinary, crossing over the boundaries of International Relations, cultural studies, Indigenous and Native studies, anthropology, human geography and continental philosophy. She is particularly interested in the study of Indigenous and radical Black thought in relation to settler colonialism in IR and beyond, and, most recently, in how to move understandings of (global) colonialism(s) beyond unitary and homogenous notions grounded in predominantly Anglo-American experiences, towards an understanding of it as complex and heterogeneous. She has a particular interest in analysing what she conceptualises as 'German colonial innocence', which she makes sense of through the lens of Black, Indigenous and decolonial thought. Previously Doerthe worked on the theorisation and analysis of political struggle in relation to understandings of nature, particularly from perspectives that engage notions of materiality and decoloniality. Her book Un-making Environmental Activism: Beyond Modern/Colonial Binaries in the GMO Controversy was published by Routledge in 2018. Together with her colleague Lara Montesinos Coleman from the University of Sussex she has also worked on how to (re-)conceptualise power and domination through the practice of and theorisation of power in political struggle.(Doerthe Rosenow is Lecturer in International Relations in the Department of War Studies at King's College London. She received her PhD and MA likewise from the KCL Department of War Studies, and her first degree (Mag.Art.) from the University of Muenster/Germany. Before (re-)joining KCL, she was Reader at Oxford Brookes University and, prior to that, Lecturer at Royal Holloway University of London. Her research is interdisciplinary, crossing over the boundaries of International Relations, cultural studies, Indigenous and Native studies, anthropology, human geography and continental philosophy. She is particularly interested in the study of Indigenous and radical Black thought in relation to settler colonialism in IR and beyond, and, most recently, in how to move understandings of (global) colonialism(s) beyond unitary and homogenous notions grounded in predominantly Anglo-American experiences, towards an understanding of it as complex and heterogeneous. She has a particular interest in analysing what she conceptualises as 'German colonial innocence', which she makes sense of through the lens of Black, Indigenous and decolonial thought. Previously Doerthe worked on the theorisation and analysis of political struggle in relation to understandings of nature, particularly from perspectives that engage notions of materiality and decoloniality. Her book Un-making Environmental Activism: Beyond Modern/Colonial Binaries in the GMO Controversy was published by Routledge in 2018. Together with her colleague Lara Montesinos Coleman from the University of Sussex she has also worked on how to (re-)conceptualise power and domination through the practice of and theorisation of power in political struggle.)edit
If critical thought is to contribute to liberatory struggle, it arguably requires a general, even structural, theorisation of the nature and sources of power and oppression. This appears to be at odds with the critical project of... more
If critical thought is to contribute to liberatory struggle, it arguably requires a general, even structural, theorisation of the nature and sources of power and oppression. This appears to be at odds with the critical project of questioning the immanence of truth to power, as famously framed by Michel Foucault. Yet Foucault's philosophical project in fact hinged upon his own attempts to grapple with this tension. What is more, his ultimate failure to resolve it led to ambiguities that might be considered generative (especially in light of increased rapprochement between Foucauldian, Marxian, and decolonial International Relations [IR]). Reading Indigenous and decolonial movement intellectuals in tandem with Foucault, alongside the philosophy of science of one of his major influences-Gaston Bachelard-we advocate attentiveness to the 'experimental' way in which struggles against capitalist extraction and (neo)colonialism hold together dissonant theoretical-and ontological-commitments when putting forward structural accounts of power. This leads us to an ethos of inquiry that starts from lived thought, as well as to a non-linear approach to the relations between method, theory, and associated ontological commitments, from which scholars are traditionally trained away in social science.
Research Interests:
Against a background of ongoing public and academic debate about how to best address the legacies of colonialism and slavery, there is now an ever-expanding body of International Relations (IR) literature that makes use of the concept of... more
Against a background of ongoing public and academic debate about how to best address the legacies of colonialism and slavery, there is now an ever-expanding body of International Relations (IR) literature that makes use of the concept of 'coloniality'. Indeed, coloniality, which attempts to make sense of past and ongoing colonial oppression in global terms, seems a particularly apt concept for IR, which, after all, is interested in understanding the nature of global power. This article is critical of the way that coloniality is increasingly used in a unitary 'catch-all' manner to describe global colonial domination in often unspecific ways. It argues, based on an in-depth exegesis of key Latin American decolonial texts, that the way the concept has been developed makes certain colonial violence, and the resistance against it, invisible; with the violence of (global) settler colonialism being a prominent example. Using and further developing Jodi Byrd's concepts of transit and settler imperialism, in dialogue with Latin American settler colonial literature and radical Black thought, this article aims to bring this violence to the forefront of IR debate. I will conclude by elaborating on the concrete consequences that understanding ongoing colonial violence with the help of these concepts has for thinking about decolonisation in IR.
Research Interests: Latin American Studies, International Relations Theory, Indigenous Politics, Indigenous Peoples, 'Decolonization' and the politics of settler state/Indigenous relations, and 6 moreSettler Colonial Studies, Decolonial Thought, Settler Colonialism & Its Legacies, Settler colonialism, Modernity/coloniality/decoloniality, and Black radical theory
Research Interests:
This article explores dimensions of political action that transgress the limitations of traditionally modern, opposition-focused conceptualisations. While there has been a turn to new non-oppositional ontologies in the last decades, there... more
This article explores dimensions of political action that transgress the limitations of traditionally modern, opposition-focused conceptualisations. While there has been a turn to new non-oppositional ontologies in the last decades, there has been less exploration of what this could mean concretely for a political activism that aims to go beyond mere ‘micropolitical’ transformation. To address this lack, this article examines the tensions between binarity and complexity through an engagement with political resistance against genetically modified organisms. This brings to light that the ontology of complexity pursued by some anti-genetically modified organism activists is ultimately grounded in a binarisation of both politics (one is either ‘for’ or ‘against’ genetically modified organisms) and life (which is either ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’). Whilst problematic, this binarisation also informs the success of anti-genetically modified organism activism. An engagement with the philosoph...
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Sociology, Peace and Conflict Studies, Violence, Security Studies, Critical Security Studies, and 11 morePolitics, Resistance (Social), Political Violence, Michel Foucault, Structuralism/Post-Structuralism, Critique, Foucault (Research Methodology), Epistemology of the Social Sciences, Resistance, Oppression, and Interrogation
Calls for decolonising IR are often focused on the need to decolonise dominant epistemologies. This article explores whether a shift towards decolonising ontology is able to provide a more profound challenge. Decolonising ontology implies... more
Calls for decolonising IR are often focused on the need to decolonise dominant epistemologies. This article explores whether a shift towards decolonising ontology is able to provide a more profound challenge. Decolonising ontology implies acknowledging that there are multiple actual ‘worlds’, rather than just multiple perspectives on THE (‘one’) world. However, I argue that this approach is limited by the representational strategies that are used for making the encounter of multiple worlds legible for an academic audience. Drawing on ethnographic work that anthropologists have undertaken in relation to the GMO controversy as well as broader decolonial work in IR, I maintain that the writing-up of research often entails the settling and stabilising of ontological encounters that have been experienced as unsettling and disconcerting. This move towards stabilisation is grounded in hegemonic, colonial understandings of which questions should be pursued and why: questions that continue to be about determining what ‘is’ (rather than asking what questions would lead to rightful action), that can be answered with the help of all-encompassing concepts (such as the concept of the ‘pluriverse’), and that provide insights for entire disciplines (such as IR). The article shows to what extent this is detrimental to projects of decolonisation.
Research Interests:
This article engages in an experiment that aims to push critical/post-structuralist thought beyond its comfort zone. Despite its commitment to critiquing modern, liberal ontologies, the article claims that these same ontologies are often... more
This article engages in an experiment that aims to push critical/post-structuralist thought beyond its comfort zone. Despite its commitment to critiquing modern, liberal ontologies, the article claims that these same ontologies are often tacitly reproduced, resulting in a failure to grasp contemporary structures and histories of violence and domination. The article brings into conversation five selected critical scholars from a range of theoretical approaches and disciplines who explore the potential of the notion of " fracture " for that purpose. The conversation revolves around political struggles at various sites—migrant struggles in Europe, decolonial struggles in Mexico, workers and peasant struggles in Colombia—in order to pinpoint how these struggles " fracture " or " crack " modern political frames in ways that neither reproduce them, nor lead to mere moments of disruption in otherwise smoothly functioning governmental regimes. Nor does such " fracturing " entail the constructing of a " complete " or " coherent " vision of a politics to come. Instead, we detail the incoherent, tentative, and multiple character of frames and practices of thought in struggle that nevertheless produce an (albeit open and contested) " whole. " Ansems de Vries: This collective discussion brings together five selected scholars who share a concern about the way much critical/post-structuralist thought tends to tacitly reproduce modern, liberal ontologies. In this article we use the notion of " fracture " in the context of political struggles as a focal point for bringing our work and critique into conversation. We all argue, in one way or another, that active ontological (reconstruction n is an important task for critical thought, and that the " fracturing " of politics therefore needs more ontological investment and deliberation than particularly post-structuralist critique admits. Methodologically, our conversation takes things " through the middle " —au milieu: by focusing on political struggles at various sites, we develop a conversation that includes both resonating conceptions of the challenge of " fracturing " modern/colonial politics, and diverging notions of its implications in theory and practice. We start off the
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This article engages in an experiment that aims to push critical/post-structuralist thought beyond its comfort zone. Despite its commitment to critiquing modern, liberal ontologies, the article claims that these same ontologies are often... more
This article engages in an experiment that aims to push critical/post-structuralist thought beyond its comfort zone. Despite its commitment to critiquing modern, liberal ontologies, the article claims that these same ontologies are often tacitly reproduced, resulting in a failure to grasp contemporary structures and histories of violence and domination. The article brings into conversation five selected critical scholars from a range of theoretical approaches and disciplines who explore the potential of the notion of 'fracture' for that purpose. The conversation revolves around political struggles at various sites – migrant struggles in Europe, decolonial struggles in Mexico, workers and peasant struggles in Colombia – in order to pintpoint how these struggles 'fracture' or 'crack' modern political frames in ways that neither reproduce them, nor lead to mere moments of disruption in otherwise smoothly functioning governmental regimes. Nor does such 'fracturing' entail the constructing of a 'complete' or 'coherent' vision of a politics to come. Instead, we detail the incoherent, tentative and multiple character of frames and practices of thought in struggle that nevertheless produce an (albeit open and contested) 'whole'.
Research Interests:
The point of departure for this article is the question of how to pursue and encourage political contestation from a position that acknowledges the significance of binary conceptualisations, but that is at the same time uncomfortable with... more
The point of departure for this article is the question of how to pursue and encourage political contestation from a position that acknowledges the significance of binary conceptualisations, but that is at the same time uncomfortable with a mode of politics that is exclusively geared
1
towards them. The limitations of this traditionally modern conceptualisation of politics – and life more generally – calls for an ontological move away from the prioritisation of bounded entities and clear-cut (oppositional) identities in order to explore other dimensions of political action. While there has been a turn to such new ontologies – in critical geography and beyond – in the last decades, there has been less exploration of what this could mean concretely for a political activism that aims to go beyond mere ‘micropolitical’ transformation. To address this lack, this article examines the tensions between binarity and complexity through an engagement with political resistance against genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This brings to light that the ontology of complexity pursued by some anti-GMO activists is ultimately grounded in a binarisation of both politics (one is either ‘for’ or ‘against’ GMOs’) and life (which is either ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’). Whilst problematic in its limitation and specification of what kind of politics and life is considered ‘right’ and ‘natural’, this binarisation also informs the success of anti-GMO activism. An engagement with the philosophy of Deleuze and Guattari, especially through the notion of the ‘encounter’, brings out this paradox and serves to radicalise the ontology of complexity argued for by anti-GMO activists in order to open up different avenues for thinking about and ‘doing’ political resistance.
1
towards them. The limitations of this traditionally modern conceptualisation of politics – and life more generally – calls for an ontological move away from the prioritisation of bounded entities and clear-cut (oppositional) identities in order to explore other dimensions of political action. While there has been a turn to such new ontologies – in critical geography and beyond – in the last decades, there has been less exploration of what this could mean concretely for a political activism that aims to go beyond mere ‘micropolitical’ transformation. To address this lack, this article examines the tensions between binarity and complexity through an engagement with political resistance against genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This brings to light that the ontology of complexity pursued by some anti-GMO activists is ultimately grounded in a binarisation of both politics (one is either ‘for’ or ‘against’ GMOs’) and life (which is either ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’). Whilst problematic in its limitation and specification of what kind of politics and life is considered ‘right’ and ‘natural’, this binarisation also informs the success of anti-GMO activism. An engagement with the philosophy of Deleuze and Guattari, especially through the notion of the ‘encounter’, brings out this paradox and serves to radicalise the ontology of complexity argued for by anti-GMO activists in order to open up different avenues for thinking about and ‘doing’ political resistance.
According to opponents of ‘neoliberal globalisation’ located in the postcolonial realm, multinational corporations are central agents in the contemporary structure of global hegemonic rule that leaves little or not space for the... more
According to opponents of ‘neoliberal globalisation’ located in the postcolonial realm, multinational corporations are central agents in the contemporary structure of global hegemonic rule that leaves little or not space for the postcolonial subject to determine his/her own fate. This argument is contested by a number of scholars, who point out that presupposing a lack of agency on the side of subaltern is yet another way of silencing him/her. But how can his/her ‘true’ voice be recognised without at the same time disguising existing domination? In this article, it will be argued that one possibility is the development of a different theoretical framework that challenges the taken-for-granted assumption on which the dilemma is based: the existence of the subject and its conscious voice. For this purpose, the article will use Deleuze’s theory of the various expressions and struggles of life. With the help of the analysis of a particular case, Monsanto’s introduction of genetically modified cotton into India in 2002, the article will then show that the multinational company (Monsanto) should not be regarded as yet another neo-colonial oppressor. Instead, it is a war machine that unleashes flows enabling nomadic life assemblages to counter-attack.
Research Interests:
A variety of scholars in critical security studies has argued in recent years that new modes of neoliberal world order are influenced by the emergence of complexity theory in the sciences, which manifests itself for example in the... more
A variety of scholars in critical security studies has argued in recent years that new modes of neoliberal world order are influenced by the emergence of complexity theory in the sciences, which manifests itself for example in the discourse of resilience. By contrast, this article aims to point at the number of governmental discourses and practices in which ‘old’ understandings of order are stubbornly persistent. What will be argued is that such a set of practices can be found in the global governance of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), in which the dominant approaches and strategies still rely on an understanding of life that is bound to elements of the traditional modern episteme; expressing the desire for predictable management that has clearly controllable effects. The article then moves on to discourses of resilience to show how they are equally characterized by elements of this episteme. In unravelling the struggle that exists between ‘old’ and ‘new’ epistemes, the article aims to elaborate on the potential of complexity discourses for challenging particular governmental rationales, manifested in both the resilience context and the GMO controversy.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In recent times, the value of a critical approach to the study of international relations (IR) that makes use of the concepts and methods of Michel Foucault has (again) been put on trial. I will argue in this article that both... more
In recent times, the value of a critical approach to the study of international relations (IR) that makes use of the concepts and methods of Michel Foucault has (again) been put on trial. I will argue in this article that both Foucauldians and their critics often neglect Foucault’s radical epistemology that always prioritises practices over political theory. The demand of such an approach is the relentless decentering and diversifying of totalising and unifying accounts of (global) power relations, resulting in a continuous challenge of the traditional meta-theories and concepts of any academic discipline – including IR. The article will follow this approach and challenge, through the investigation of a particular case of what is commonly perceived as an exercise in “global governance”, the idea that contemporary (global) power relations can be depicted solely through the lens of neoliberalism, sovereignty, or biopolitics. Instead, it will show that (global) power is located in a complex and flexible constellation of diverse and contradictory, mutually constituting and mutually destabilising strategies and tactics at particular sites.
Research Interests:
This paper engages with the question of how to decolonise the concept of democracy. Coming from a decolonial perspective, it argues that we need to draw on non-modern knowledges, experiences and ontologies in order to redefine it, and to... more
This paper engages with the question of how to decolonise the concept of democracy. Coming from a decolonial perspective, it argues that we need to draw on non-modern knowledges, experiences and ontologies in order to redefine it, and to disentangle it from the modernity/coloniality co-constitutive move. The paper draws on the example of the controversy around who has, and who should have, a ‘voice’ in the controversy around agricultural biotechnology in Paraguay and Mexico, which will be brought into dialogue with the work of Bruno Latour on the need for ‘spokespersonship’ as well as Gayatri C. Spivak’s work on the voice of the subaltern. Based on this, it is argued that a decolonised understanding of democracy needs to both extend and transform the idea of who (and what) should have a voice in democratic decision-making procedures – reaching out to, most significantly, nonhumans – as well as the understanding of how that ‘voice’ can and should be (democratically) represented.