Abstract | This contribution concerns the problematic of refusal as a response to the forum question of ‘critique at the crossroads’. This is necessary as questions This is because questions of climate security are increasingly being posed in ways that trouble any straightforward divide between ‘problem-solving’ approaches and those of critique (see anon in this issue). We see how easily traditional critical approaches and more contemporary imaginaries of non-Western, or non-anthropocentric epistemologies and ontologies can be enrolled in the new disciplinary discourses as Author 3 (this forum) outlines. For this reason, it would perhaps be productive to think of climate security as more analogous to discourses of economic security, that seek to construct some shared overarching, systemic, perspective or interest. In which case, a politics of refusal could be an important, indeed an obvious, starting point. This brief forum intervention therefore engages three key frameworks which start from the assumption of climate security critique as refusal: the ‘speculative’, the ‘decolonial’ and the ‘negativating’. There is a shared framework for the three approaches, that I focus upon, they all start with the imbrication of race, climate change and critique in the 500 years of the modernist project. This shared understanding of the imbrication of race and climate security in the coloniality of modernity forms the epistemic base upon which important analytical and political stakes will be drawn concerning critique and refusal. |
---|