The International Relations of the Anthropocene (15 op)

Arviointiasteikko

H-5

Tavoitteet

After completion of the course the student is able to
- engage in critical analysis of conceptual, theoretical and debates concerning the Anthropocene
- recognize ontological and epistemological premises of the theory of the Anthropocene and to reflect on its implications for theories and debates concerning the state of international relations today
- demonstrate independent judgment and communication at a level commensurate with advanced level studies.

Toteutustavat

Lectures and seminars (15–20 h). Independent work with the literature.

Suoritustavat

Seminar participation and presentation (5 op). Written essay (10 op).

Sisältö

International Relations today confronts the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene describes the geological epoch in which the human became the main influence on the climate and environment of the planet. It also denotes human responsibility for the degradation of the planet, and the reality of the fact that the world as we know it is ending, as well as human culpability for that end. Humanity, we are told, is culpable for its own demise amid the creation of catastrophic climate change and global ecological disaster. Yet this is not tragic we are told. It is an opportunity for the human to grasp its historical errors and learn how to change its ways, so as to adapt to the new reality of ecological disaster. How does the Anthropocene change how we think about international relations? What does the discipline of International Relations have to say about it? This course will investigate the implications of the Anthropocene for how International Relations understands itself, the limits of the human, the relation of the human to the non-human world, the politics of time, of futures, pasts, and the failed promises of the modern, and possibly the extinction of the species itself.

Oppimateriaalit

Mark Maslin & Simon Lewis (2018) The Human Planet: How We Created the Anthropocene.

Arviointikriteerit, tyydyttävä (1)

Fail: Performance is highly deficient or erroneous. The work may be based on serious misunderstandings.

Sufficient and satisfactory (1-2): Performance is lacking in scope, superficial, or corresponds poorly to the assignment. The author merely lists things out of context or addresses them one-sidedly. The work may contain errors or obscurities.

Arviointikriteerit, hyvä (3)

Good and very good (3-4): Performance corresponds to the assignment, manifesting comprehension and a skill to analyse and justify. The author has addressed the issue comprehensively. The work may contain some deficiencies.

Arviointikriteerit, kiitettävä (5)

Excellent (5): Performance delineates an extensive whole and the author can apply knowledge in a multifaceted way or place it in various contexts. The work manifests independency and insight, and it is a flawless entity that involves justified thinking or critical contemplation. The work is well written and implemented.

Esitietovaatimukset

BA studies