In the realm of International Relations, the concept of the “planetary” has garnered significant interest as a framework for reimagining the relationships between States and humanity. This idea goes beyond ecological issues and environmental degradation and has historical roots. During the Cold War, John Herz introduced the concept of a “planetary mind” in response to nuclear threats, reshaping national interests into a broader perspective (Herz, 1959). In the early 1970s, Harold and Margaret Sprout highlighted the planetary as a growing ecological consciousness within international relations (Sprout & Sprout, 1971). While not a new concept, the reception of the manifesto published by Millennium. Journal of International Studies in 2016 awaits further exploration (Burke & a., 2016). Challenging traditional notions of power and sovereignty, the planetary concept prompts a reevaluation of humanity’s role on Earth and its responsibilities towards future generations and other forms of life.
In recent years, a body of literature has emerged, covering topics from geostrategic risks related to resource extraction to non-Western cosmologies diverging from traditional Westphalian views. This article aims to provide a basic guide to navigating this literature, delving into three representations of the planetary that shape our understanding of planetary politics: the Nomos of the Earth, the Gaia Hypothesis, and the Spirit of the Earth. Each representation carries distinct implications. The Nomos of the Earth views the planet as a territory for conquest; the Gaia Hypothesis portrays an evolving struggle between humans and nature; and the Spirit of the Earth offers a path towards inner revolution, reevaluating human connections on Earth. These three conceptions are interconnected with various planetary approaches.
Nomos of the Earth: Contemplating the Planet through Geopolitics
The “planetary” concept is often disregarded by modernity proponents, who perceive wars as conflicts between States over territory and resources. This perspective aligns with multiple Geopolitics schools emphasizing competition among major powers and the role of geography. Influenced by Carl Schmitt’s ideas, key figures in this field interpret international relations as an endless cycle of territorial acquisition, focusing on land rather than the planet as a whole.
Schmitt’s theory centers on the “Nomos,” which denotes the historical division of space. Rooted in Christian theology, his perspective posits that humans are bound to the earth, considered a confining element rather than a nurturing one. He differentiates between land, viewed as orderly and shaped by human labor, and the sea, associated with chaos and lawlessness. Schmitt’s disregard for oceans reflects his belief that they disrupt human order and control, simplifying the planet to land and overlooking the importance of water and the interconnectedness of life.
This interpretation reflects current realities, as defense spending remains high, with the US allocating over $1.4 trillion in 2022. Despite global crises like the 2008 Financial Crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, military expenditures remain at Cold War levels, highlighting a security dilemma among states. Innovations in military technology, such as robotics and transhumanist research, further complicate modern warfare dynamics.
Aside from financial investments, changes in conflict dynamics are visible in shared spaces accessible but unowned by any single entity, like international airspace, high seas, outer space, and cyberspace. Historically controlled by the US, emerging powers like China and Russia are contesting these areas, challenging previous monopolies through maritime claims, anti-satellite technologies, and cyber warfare, ushering in a new era of military competition.
While direct conflicts haven’t erupted in these domains, a “state of war” is brewing, marked by rising militarization and the potential for conflict without formal declarations of war. Major powers are adapting their doctrines to this shift, with Russia advocating for a “new generation war” and China exploring various forms of warfare, including media and psychological strategies.
Reducing planetary concerns to territorial conflicts mirrors the Thucydides’ trap scenario, illustrating tensions between dominant powers like the US and China today (Allison, 2017). This rivalry revolves around territorial control and competing interests, escalating tensions over common resources and ownership disputes.
However, focusing solely on military conflicts ignores the ecological impact of expanding armed forces. Despite growing awareness of environmental issues within the military sector, armed forces’ ecological footprint remains substantial, contributing to environmental degradation and exacerbating climate change. This raises ethical questions about the environmental consequences of warfare. Additionally, concentrating on traditional forms of conflict neglects non-military disputes and alternative war conceptualizations. Schmitt’s approach primarily addresses state confrontations, sidelining other forms of conflict. New approaches to warfare, rooted in ecological concerns, suggest that resource struggles can extend beyond conventional military battles. For instance, the ecological dimensions of the Ukraine War in 2022 underscore the need for energy conservation, signaling a shift away from reliance on resources from adversarial nations. Nonetheless, this ecological lens remains rooted in conventional war perceptions, viewing energy abstinence as a tool within modern conflict contexts, prompting contemplation on the emergence of a broader planetary vision.
In essence, prevailing interpretations of the planetary sphere, heavily influenced by territorial and militaristic outlooks, tend to obscure the intricate connections between environmental and geopolitical issues. A holistic grasp of the planetary necessitates acknowledging the complex interplay between humanity, the environment, and conflict, transcending traditional geopolitical narratives.
Gaia Hypothesis: Exploring a Novel Life Struggle
According to Hannah Arendt (2018), human life is inherently entwined with Earth, threatened by humanity’s actions as homo faber. She underscores Earth as humanity’s fundamental habitat, warning against annihilating organic life through technologies like nuclear weapons. However, modern society’s environmental impacts have escalated, leading to accelerated global changes beyond the “Great Acceleration” observed since 1945 (McNeill & Engelke, 2014). This acceleration reflects an unprecedented push to control and access the world, resulting in heightened life rhythms affecting personal and societal experiences (Rosa, 2013).
Resulting from this acceleration is the concept of planetary limits, where the environment struggles to accommodate human activities and their ecological repercussions. Research indicates that only three planetary boundaries remain intact, including ocean acidification, ozone layer depletion, and atmospheric aerosol concentration. Conversely, limits related to climate change, biodiversity loss, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, land use, and chemical pollution have been surpassed.
In the 1970s, James Lovelock introduced the Gaia hypothesis, portraying the planet as a complex system shaped by humanity’s interaction with the biosphere. Lovelock’s perspective does not attribute intention to Gaia but views her as an evolutionary system encompassing all living organisms and their environments. This contrasts with the conventional globe view focused on resource control and exploitation. Bruno Latour builds on this concept, arguing against equating the Globe with the Planetary, highlighting the former as an external framework encompassing geopolitical entities. In the Nomos of the Earth framework, nature is regarded merely as a resource for human use, while the Gaia hypothesis offers a broader perspective acknowledging the active role of non-human components in the environment.
Latour’s interpretation broadens the concept of conflict beyond traditional boundaries, suggesting warfare involves a broader array of entities, not just humans. He frames war as a conflict encompassing all entities, with environmental factors playing critical roles. This view, transformative though it may be, doesn’t entirely escape the antagonistic Nomos framework. Latour, like Lovelock, seeks to redefine sovereignty, distancing it from historical notions bolstering imperialism. Despite arguing that “geo” in contemporary settings signals a new Earth, the Gaia concept risks reinforcing nature as an adversary, perpetuating a Darwinian perspective that overlooks crucial cooperative interactions vital for evolutionary progress.
Chakrabarty offers a distinct perspective on the planetary, highlighting five characteristics setting it apart from the global outlook. These aspects revolve around the planet’s habitability, embracing diverse life forms, considering the planet’s history, and open acceptance of life’s diverse forms. This framework avoids the trappings of “green imperialism” by acknowledging indigenous cosmogonies and ancient planetary consciousness, presenting alternative insights into our planetary essence.
Chakrabarty’s viewpoint broadens the conversation on humanity’s relationship with the planet within a broader context, acknowledging that planetary awareness extends beyond current discourse into ancient traditions (Chakrabarty, 2023). While his framework offers valuable insights, it mirrors a modern awakening to our planetary situation, contrasting with indigenous and other philosophical traditions highlighting life’s interconnectedness.
In summary, the contemporary discourse on the planetary challenges traditional human-centered exploitation views and underscores the necessity for a comprehensive understanding of our Earth relationship. By integrating diverse perspectives and recognizing non-human agency, we can steer towards a more sustainable and equitable coexistence on our planet.
Spirit of the Earth: The Planet in Life Evolution
The Spirit of the Earth concept aligns humanity with the planetary, representing an evolutionary process beyond mere geography or physicality. Also known as the noosphere, this term introduced in the 1920s by geochemist Vladimir Vernadski and philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin denotes an additional layer of thought and reflection beyond the biosphere, impacting living beings profoundly. Vernadski describes humanity as a “large-scale geological force” before the Anthropocene label emerged, marking a shift in understanding our Earth role.
While Vernadski’s noosphere approach is primarily secular and physical, Teilhard’s view encompasses both physical and metaphysical realms, associating the noosphere with progress, contrasting with Bruno Latour’s planetary perspectives. Scholars Jonathan S. Blake and Nils Gilman delve into these contrasts in their 2024 book dedicated to the Planetary, often overlooking the profound implications of Teilhard’s Spirit of the Earth (Teilhard de Chardin, 1959). Teilhard’s vision emphasizes humanity’s responsibility for Earth’s future, encompassing three fundamental aspects.
1. Unification of Human History: Describing a historical convergence where national narratives merge into a unified human history on Earth, Teilhard identifies two phases: geographical expansion from Africa globally and societal compression fostering collective human awareness, yielding both progress and tension. The globalization era has led to an overwhelming environment causing a rise in nationalism and populism.
2. Link Between Personalization and Planetization: The Spirit of the Earth signifies an upsurge in human self-expression and reflexivity, connecting individuals not only to local communities but to the planet at large. This shift encourages a deeper understanding of shared human existence, prompting individuals to realize their place in the broader human experience.
3. Moral Imagination Beyond Survival: The Spirit of the Earth transcends mere survival, striving for a positive existence dictated by moral imagination. Teilhard argues for humanity’s evolution towards a life intent on flourishing rather than mere survival, reshaping geopolitical understandings and calling for collaborative efforts in building a sustainable future instead of succumbing to conflict.
Despite current global challenges like Russian aggression and diminishing multilateralism painting a bleak picture, they shouldn’t overshadow ongoing cooperation processes and crisis management achievements. Recent milestones like the high seas preservation treaty signify advancements in global governance and resource stewardship.
The Spirit of the Earth embodies a personal and psychic revolution that invites individuals to acknowledge their identity as Earth inhabitants. This transformation cultivates a broader consciousness, prioritizing the survival of humanity and Earth. Contrary to John Herz’s “planetary mind” focusing on strategic international relations dimensions, the Spirit of the Earth champions individual agency and collective evolution.
The COVID-19 pandemic has catalyzed introspection, fostering reconnections with surroundings and others. Initiatives like StayHomeSounds showcase how shared experiences during lockdowns can deepen appreciation for interconnectedness. However, socioeconomic disparities must be recognized for they influence individuals’ capacity to engage in this transformative process.
The personal revolution resonates with human security, which highlights individual safety and dignity beyond state-centric frameworks. Renewed focus on personal agency and solidarity is crucial in cultivating a compassionate global society.
Moving towards the Spirit of the Earth requires an economic revolution challenging prevailing capitalist models and exploring sustainable practices. The pandemic exposed a return to consumerism despite environmental calls; however, initiatives like permaculture, promoting harmony with nature, show promise for a sustainable future.
Yet, challenges arise with the emergence of Homo planeticus, suggesting a new humanity type focused on progress. This evolution raises concerns about domination potentials, mirroring historical oppressive ideologies’ consequences. Protecting the Spirit of the Earth from exploitation mandates embracing decolonial approaches and acknowledging indigenous communities’ diverse perspectives as valuable contributions to global sustainability.
Ultimately, the Spirit of the Earth transcends intellectual pursuits, evoking love as a vital force. Love fosters recognition and appreciation among individuals, emphasizing individuality within a collective context. Love acts as a unifying force transcending differences, enabling humanity to move beyond coercion and conflict. The presence of love prompts contemplation on the interplay between convergence and personalization, fostering deeper connections to the planetary experience. Bauman’s notion highlighting the essential role of collaboration in humanity’s survival, resonates profoundly within this context. Recent research underscores love’s significance in understanding IR, in both Western and non-Western traditions (Hartnett, 2020; Hartnett, 2024).
In conclusion, the Spirit of the Earth embodies a transformative vision for humanity, urging individuals to acknowledge their interconnectedness with each other and the planet. Embracing this spirit necessitates a moral and personal revolution challenging socio-economic structures while prioritizing love and solidarity as foundational principles in navigating the complexities of the modern world. Only through embodying the Spirit of the Earth can humanity sustain a lasting evolution predicated on love, solidarity, and collective responsibility. This third representation introduces a transformative dimension reorienting International Relations towards genuine global cooperation and a renewed comprehension of human security.
This “personal revolution” proposed by the Spirit of the Earth invites each individual to recognize their place in a shared world. This image calls for spiritual and practical reflection on living in an interconnected world, potentially fostering a collective consciousness capable of meeting planetary challenges. The Spirit of the Earth embodies a humanistic and ecological approach to International Relations, pivoting away from military power or domination towards a shared vision of “building the Earth” (Teilhard de Chardin, 1959).
References
Allison, G. (2017). Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?. Melbourne: Scribe.
Arendt, H. (2018). The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bauman, Z. (2017). Retrotopia. Cambridge: Polity Press
Blake, J., & Gilman, N. (2024). Children of a Modest Star: Planetary Thinking for an Age of Crises. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Burke, A., Fishel, S., Mitchell, A., Dalby, S., & Levine, D. J. (2016). “Planet Politics: A Manifesto from the End of IR.” Millennium, 44(3), 499-523.
Chakrabarty, D. (2023). One Planet, Many Worlds: The Climate Parallax. Waltham: Brandeis University Press.
Hartnett, L. (2020). “Love as a Practice of Peace: The Political Theologies of Tolstoy, Gandhi and King.” In Theology and World Politics. International Political Theory, eds. Vassilios Paipais, 265-88. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hartnett, L. (2024). “How love orders: An engagement with the disciplinary of international relations.” European Journal of International Relations, 30(1), 203-26.
Herz, J. H. (1959). International Politics in the Atomic Age. New York: Columbia University Press.
Latour, B. (2017). Facing Gaia: Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Rosa, H. (2013). Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sprout, H., & Sprout, M. (1971). Toward a Politics of the Planet Earth. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Schmitt, C. (2003). The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of Jus Publicum Europaeum. Telos Press Publishing.
Teilhard de Chardin, P. (1959). “Building the Earth.” CrossCurrents, 9(4), 315-330.
Vernadski, V. (1945). “The Biosphere and the Noosphere.” American Scientist, 33(1), 1-12.
