The posthuman way of war

Abstract

Recent interventions from a 'posthumanist' or 'new materialist' perspective have highlighted the embedded character of human systems within a 'panarchy' of human and non-human systems. Some of these discussions have influenced recent work in International Relations and Security Studies. Much of this work has brought a focus to the specifically material as a counterpoint to more idealist or subjectivist discussions. This article brings attention to a very particular element of materiality, one with a profound significance for issues of security -relations between human and non-human animals in instances of conflict.It is an indication of the deeply human-centred character of both International Relations and Security Studies that almost none of the central texts even mention the very significant roles that non-human animals have in the conduct of war. A central part of our argument is that the character of war, this key area of attention, itself would have been radically different but for the forced participation by an enormous range of non-human animals. Even though with the improvements in transportation over the last century non-human animals are less evident in the role of the movements of people and equipment, they still play a significant number of roles in the contemporary war-machines of wealthy countries.Drawing on literature from critical animal studies, sociology, and memoirs the article discusses the enormous variety of roles that non-human animals have played in the conduct of war. We also examine the character of human -nonhuman animal relations in times of war.

Animalising International Relations

“…International Relations as stands is incomplete without the inclusion of the rest of nature. The additive approach has the benefit of accounting for absences and omissions, such as the significant role which animals have played historically in the conduct of warfare, for example, 93 or the ways in which companion dogs (and indeed other animals) are imbricated into political performance -such as the dogs of the White House. 94 The second approach -conceptual extension -is also an additive approach.…”

Inside a jaguar's jaws

“…Different scholars have shown how, in both its planning and execution, war should be understood as a hybrid endeavor, a phenomenon reconfiguring and combining humans and nonhumans in the execution of violence (Cudworth & Hobden, 2015; Forsyth, 2017; Gregory, 2016; Pugliese, 2020). Here, I argue that the hybrid nature of war encompasses its aftermath as well.…”

“…Recent approaches to warfare have shown the biocultural embeddedness of both human practices and institutions in other‐than‐human systems (Cudworth & Hobden, 2015; Gregory, 2016; Pugliese, 2020). When examining the roles animals play in the conduct of war, either as weapons (Forsyth, 2017; Hediger, 2013a; Masco, 2004; Moore & Kosut, 2013; Skabelund, 2011), propaganda symbols (Raffles, 2010; Russell, 2004; Tait, 2016), or for the development of technological capabilities (Kosek, 2010), scholars have pointed out that war brings about new arrangements in the human‐nonhuman interface, reconfiguring the boundaries between species and blending the social and natural domains.…”

“…War should therefore be conceptualized as a hybrid phenomenon whose defining features play out simultaneously in human and nonhuman lives, even blurring the boundaries between subjects and objects (Forsyth, 2017; Gregory, 2016; Pugliese, 2020). This compels us to question human mastery over the design and waging of war (Hediger, 2013b) as well as who or what, in fact, enacts violence (Cudworth & Hobden, 2015). The understanding of this hybridization, however, has focused on the stages of preparation for and conduct of war rather than on war's so‐called aftermath.…”

Becoming war: Towards a martial empiricism

“…However, the other of war, contra Levinas, is not just the problem of other human minds. Consciousness indeterminably bleeds into other forms-of-life, distributed amongst animals and machinesthe horses, dogs, pigeons, or dolphins of war, their biomimetic counterparts and other algorithmic presences (Cudworth and Hobden, 2015). We already have phenomenological accounts surveying the umwelts of drone operators and their targets (Holmqvist, 2013;Daggett 2015).…”