International Relations and the Anthropocene: paradigm encounters, battles and pluralism

A growing body of scholarship contends that the Anthropocene entails not only a fundamental transformation in how the world is understood, but also a paradigmatic shift in society, politics, and theory, accompanied by the imperative to bring the sciences together. Yet despite this recognition, the contemporary “knowledge basis” surrounding the Anthropocene—including the actions it prescribes—remains epistemologically fragile. In particular, it lacks a sufficiently grounded integration of social and natural sciences. Substantial scholarly work therefore remains to be done to reconstruct Anthropocene knowledge in a more coherent, reflexive, and methodologically robust manner. This article contributes to this task and to the Special Issue by interrogating the epistemological foundations of current Anthropocene research. It argues that the scientific and theoretical bases of the Anthropocene remain underdeveloped and are constrained by unresolved paradigm conflicts, disciplinary biases, and methodological fragmentation. These limitations continue to impede the emergence of a coherent research agenda capable of engaging the complexity and urgency of the Anthropocene. The article examines how Anthropocene research is currently being shaped within International Relations (IR), while situating these debates within the broader field of Anthropocene scholarship. It focuses on three principal bodies of knowledge. First, Earth System Sciences (ESS), which are central to defining the Anthropocene in geological and planetary terms. Second, International Relations, which approaches the Anthropocene through global political, economic, and security lenses. Third, philosophical approaches broadly categorized as New Materialism and Posthumanism, which foreground relational ontologies and human–nonhuman entanglements. As this article demonstrates, encounters between disciplines –especially within IR itself- in the search for paradigmatic change and pluridisciplinary research demand greater analytical scrutiny than they have thus far received. Such encounters remain insufficiently systematized and rarely problematized. The complexity and urgency of the Anthropocene call for a fundamental reorientation of knowledge production that transcends disciplinary boundaries, accommodates ontological diversity, and cultivates epistemic pluralism. While ESS provides indispensable planetary-scale analyses, New Materialism/Posthumanism offers insights into micro-level relational dynamics, and IR contributes global political-economic perspectives, none of these approaches alone is adequate for addressing the multifaceted challenges of the Anthropocene. Despite widespread acknowledgment of this insufficiency, constructive proposals for engaging and integrating these distinct paradigms remain limited. Practical and institutional barriers to collaboration, enduring power asymmetries between disciplines, and persistent paradigm tensions constitute significant obstacles. These dynamics often generate fragmented and partially disconnected bodies of knowledge, marked by both internal and external frictions. Within IR in particular, Anthropocene research appears increasingly characterized by conceptual ambiguity, disciplinary competition, and intellectual stagnation. Rather than advancing integrative frameworks, the field has become preoccupied with internal debates and defensive responses to paradigm encounters and clashes. In response, this article seeks to disentangle Anthropocene debates within IR that have increasingly conflated heterogeneous perspectives. It deliberately adopts a meta-analytical approach in order to differentiate, categorize, and critically reflect on the sources of thought informing these debates. Central to this effort is a foundational analytical question: who is saying what, informed by which worldview? From this follows a further inquiry into the kinds of worlds that Anthropocene scholarship brings into being—and those that remain obscured or marginalized. More broadly, the article argues for the need to further “unpack the Trojan horse” of Anthropocene scholarship by critically examining the assumptions, methods, and power relations embedded within disciplinary traditions. Such a meta-perspective can illuminate blind spots and enable more constructive engagement across paradigms. To address the current condition of paradigm competition and Anthropocene “anarchy,” the article advances the principle of paradigm pluralism as a potential contribution from IR. Paradigm pluralism allows for the assemblage of diverse analytical toolkits and bodies of research on the basis of mutual recognition rather than epistemic hierarchy. Building on this foundation, the article sketches a preliminary research agenda grounded in the analytical tools of security studies and an ecological perspective. It argues that critical approaches to security studies—given its established position within IR—combined with insights from Green IR Theory, which is informed by Green Political Theory and Political Ecology (GPT/PE)- can function as a conceptual junction for systematically advancing Anthropocene inquiry. This approach is understood as the juxtaposition and comparative analysis of disciplinary work, centered on threat–response logics and ecological relationality. Both are central to conceptualizing the Anthropocene as a transformation in human–nature relations marked by existential risks. A first part of the research agenda applies the analytical frameworks from critical security studies to the three heterogeneous bodies of Anthropocene knowledge. This would enable a systematic comparison of underlying values, threat perceptions, and proposed responses, while positioning the threat–response framework as a potential analytical junction for Anthropocene Studies. The second component of the proposed framework focuses on the human–nature relationship as articulated within the ecological paradigms of GPT/PE. This includes attention to forms of centrism, subject–object relations, holism, and futurity. By centering analysis on the condition of humankind—its values, fears, and entanglements with nonhuman worlds—this perspective opens up philosophical debates concerning futures, security, apocalyptic imaginaries, and existential meaning. Methodologically, the proposed research agenda sketches out a cross-reading of ESS, IR, and New Materialist/Posthumanist scholarship using shared analytical categories derived from security studies and ecological paradigm, grounded in paradigm pluralism. This allows distinct bodies of knowledge to be assembled alongside one another rather than ordered hierarchically. Rather than reinforcing disciplinary silos, the proposed approach operates at the disciplinary boundaries. It asks not how each discipline should proceed in isolation, but how shared analytical reference points can be identified and bridged through pluri- and transdisciplinary engagement. In doing so, it aims to (a) establish an initial structure for pluridisciplinary dialogue, (b) identify areas of convergence as well as fundamental divergences or counter-approaches, and (c) reveal gaps and blind spots that have thus far remained underexplored. Four broader implications accompany this research agenda, which need also further elaboration. First, plurality must extend to the politics of knowledge production itself while avoiding to produce a totalizing narrative. Second, the limits and role of knowledge warrant sustained critical attention. Third, the societal and political effects of Anthropocene research, as well as the inclusion of diverse actors in knowledge-production processes, constitute both key opportunities and persistent challenges. This requires foregrounding principles of inclusivity and co-production to ensure that scientific knowledge remains embedded within social realities, political contexts, and normative commitments. At the same time, expanding the limited knowledge base underlying socio-ecological transformation processes is both necessary and politically important but also a challenging endeavor. Fourth, conceptualizing Anthropocene Studies as a survival science raises further questions regarding the securitization of knowledge and its consequences. Taken together, this article argues that IR—by engaging hard sciences, hard politics such as security, and philosophical and normative inquiry—can contribute to negotiating multiple cosmologies, ontologies, and epistemologies within a more comprehensive analytical framework. While this agenda does not offer definitive solutions, it underscores the importance of sustained engagement, critical reflexivity, and the imperative to “think harder” about Anthropocene Studies. Such thinking is essential not only for understanding the evolving human–Earth relationship, but also for informing political and scholarly responses aimed at navigating conditions of survival in the Anthropocene.