SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türkiye Siyaset Bilimi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

The Representation of Nature and Nonhuman Agency: Insights From New Materialism, Posthumanism and Ontological Politics

Doğanın ve İnsan Dışı Öznelliğin Temsili: Yeni Materyalizm, Posthümanizm ve Ontolojik Politikalardan Çıkarımlar

Muhammed Ramazan Demirci(GİRESUN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6726-7370
Pages
53–68
Publication Date
2026-03-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings reveal that these instances collectively strive to redefine nature not just as an entity to be protected but as a rights-bearing subject possessing political agency.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article explores the potential for acknowledging nature and nonhuman entities as political subjects by challenging the prevailing anthropocentric paradigm in contemporary representation theories.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study integrates conceptual analysis with comparative case studies, utilizing the theoretical frameworks of new materialism, posthumanism, and ontological politics.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal that these instances collectively strive to redefine nature not just as an entity to be protected but as a rights-bearing subject possessing political agency.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Temsil · Yeni Materyalizm · Posthümanizm

Abstract

This article explores the potential for acknowledging nature and nonhuman entities as political subjects by challenging the prevailing anthropocentric paradigm in contemporary representation theories. The study integrates conceptual analysis with comparative case studies, utilizing the theoretical frameworks of new materialism, posthumanism, and ontological politics. It explores diverse legal and political initiatives, such as the designation of the Whanganui River as a legal entity in New Zealand, the judicial efforts to confer personhood upon the Ganges and Yamuna rivers in India, the constitutional integration of the rights of nature in Ecuador, judicial decisions regarding the Atrato River and the Amazon Rainforest in Colombia, and local governance experiments in the United States. The findings reveal that these instances collectively strive to redefine nature not just as an entity to be protected but as a rights-bearing subject possessing political agency. The article connects relational ontology, reciprocity, and multispecies citizenship to modern democratic theory, contributing to normative discussions on ecological democracy and showcasing creative institutional frameworks for incorparating nonhuman perspectives into decision-making process. The study ultimately presents, an innovative paradigm that extends the political community’s parameters beyond the humanity, providing both theoretical profundity and practical guidance for reconsidering democracy amid ecological crisis.

Özet

Bu çalışma, modern siyaset teorisinde hâkim olan antropomerkezci temsil anlayışını sorgulayarak doğa ve insan dışı varlıkların siyasi özne olarak tanınabilirliğini incelemektedir. Kuramsal çerçevesini yeni materyalizm, posthümanizm ve ontolojik politikalardan alan araştırma, kavramsal analiz ile karşılaştırmalı vaka incelemelerini bir araya getirmektedir. Yeni Zelanda’daki Whanganui Nehri’nin yasal kişilik kazanması, Hindistan’da Ganj ve Yamuna nehirlerinin hukuki özne olarak tanınma girişimleri, Ekvador Anayasası’nda doğanın haklarının yer alması, Kolombiya’da Atrato Nehri ve Amazon Ormanları kararları ile ABD’deki yerel yönetim uygulamaları, insan–doğa ilişkisinin yeniden tanımlandığı örnekler olarak ele alınmaktadır. Bulgular, bu örneklerin ortak yönünün doğayı salt korunması gereken bir nesne değil, hak ve sorumluluk sahibi bir özne olarak konumlandırmak olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma, ilişkisel ontoloji, karşılıklılık ve çoktürlü vatandaşlık kavramlarını demokrasi teorisiyle ilişkilendirerek ekolojik demokrasinin normatif temellerini tartışmaktadır. Sonuç olarak makale, insan dışı varlıkların siyasal temsiline dair hem kuramsal hem de kurumsal düzeyde yeni açılımlar sunmakta ve demokratik topluluğun sınırlarını insan ötesine genişleten özgün bir çerçeve önermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Demirci, M. R. (2026). The Representation of Nature and Nonhuman Agency: Insights From New Materialism, Posthumanism and Ontological Politics. Türkiye Siyaset Bilimi Dergisi, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 53–68. https://doi.org/10.59886/tsbder.1761621

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (61)

  1. abcolombia. (2024). River Atrato: First River in Colombia to be awarded rights. https://www.abcolombia.org.uk/constitutional-court-sets-global-precedent
  2. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.
  3. Benner, E. (2024). This pristine Canadian river has legal personhood, a new approach to conserving nature. https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/the-nature-of-things/this-pristine-canadian-river-has-legal-personhood-a-new-approach-to-conserving-nature-1.7100728
  4. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Duke University Press.
  5. Boyd, D. R. (2017). The rights of nature: A legal revolution that could save the world. ECW Press.
  6. Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Polity Press.
  7. Braidotti, R. (2018). A theoretical framework for the critical posthumanities. Theory, Culture & Society, 36(6), 31–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276418771486
  8. Braidotti, R. (2022). Posthuman feminism. Polity Press.
  9. Brown, M. B. (2009). Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation. MIT Press.
  10. Bustos, C., & Richardson, W. (2023). Implementing nature’s rights in Colombia: The Atrato and Amazon experiences. Revista Derecho del Estado, 54, 227–275. https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/1253/
  11. Cao, B. (2015). Environment and citizenship. Routledge.
  12. Challe, T. (2021). The rights of nature—Can an ecosystem bear legal rights? https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/04/22/rights-of-nature-lawsuits
  13. Chapron, G., Epstein, Y., & López-Bao, J. V. (2019). A rights revolution for nature. Science, 363(6434), 1392–1393. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav5601
  14. Charpleix, L. (2018). The Whanganui River as Te Awa Tupua: Place-based law in a legally pluralistic society. The Geographical Journal, 184(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12238
  15. Coole, D., & Frost, S. (Eds.). (2010). New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics. Duke University Press.
  16. Cullinan, C. (2011). Wild law: A manifesto for Earth justice (2nd ed.). Green Books.
  17. de la Cadena, M. (2015). Earth beings: Ecologies of practice across Andean worlds. Duke University Press.
  18. Despret, V. (2016). What would animals say if we asked the right questions? (B. Buchanan, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
  19. Dobson, A., & Valencia Sáiz, Á. (2005). Citizenship, environment, economy. Routledge.
  20. Dobson, A. (2003). Citizenship and the environment. Oxford University Press.
  21. Donaldson, S., & Kymlicka, W. (2011). Zoopolis: A political theory of animal rights. Oxford University Press.
  22. Dryzek, J. S. (2013). The politics of the Earth: Environmental discourses (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
  23. Dryzek, J. S., & Pickering, J. (2019). The politics of the Anthropocene. Oxford University Press.
  24. Eckersley, R. (1999). The discourse ethic and the problem of representing nature. Environmental Politics, 8(2), 24–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644019908414460
  25. Gudynas, E. (2011). Buen vivir: Today’s tomorrow. Development, 54(4), 441–447. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2011.86
  26. Haklay, M. (2013). Citizen science and volunteered geographic information: Overview and typology of participation. In D. Sui, S. Elwood, & M. Goodchild (Eds.), Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge (pp. 105–122). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4587-2_7
  27. Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. Routledge.
  28. Haraway, D. J. (2003). The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people, and significant otherness. Prickly Paradigm Press.
  29. Haraway, D. J. (2008). When species meet. University of Minnesota Press.
  30. Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press.
  31. Hutchison, A. (2016). The Whanganui River as a legal person. Alternative Law Journal, 39(3), 179–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X1403900309
  32. Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. Routledge.
  33. Karpouzou, P., & Zampaki, N. (Eds.). (2023). Symbiotic posthumanist ecologies in Western literature, philosophy and art: Towards theory and practice. Peter Lang.
  34. Kauffman, C. M., & Martin, P. L. (2017). Can rights of nature make development more sustainable? Why some Ecuadorian lawsuits succeed and others fail. World Development, 92, 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.017
  35. Kirksey, S. E., & Helmreich, S. (2010). The emergence of multispecies ethnography. Cultural Anthropology, 25(4), 545–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01069.x
  36. Kotzé, L. J. (2019). Earth system law for the Anthropocene. Sustainability, 11(23), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236796
  37. Lake Erie Bill of Rights. (2019). https://www.utoledo.edu/law/academics/ligl/pdf/2019/Lake-Erie-Bill-of-Rights-GLWC-2019.pdf
  38. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern (C. Porter, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
  39. Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy (C. Porter, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
  40. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
  41. Latour, B. (2018). Down to earth: Politics in the new climatic regime (C. Porter, Trans.). Polity Press.
  42. Latour, B. (2021). After lockdown: A metamorphosis (J. Rose, Trans.). Polity Press.
  43. Latulippe, N., & Klenk, N. (2020). Making room and moving over: Knowledge co-production, Indigenous knowledge sovereignty and the politics of global environmental change decision-making. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.10.010
  44. Leopold, A. (2001). A Sand County almanac. Oxford University Press.
  45. O’Donnell, E. (2019). Legal rights for rivers: Competition, collaboration and water governance. Routledge.
  46. O’Donnell, E., & Talbot-Jones, J. (2018). Creating legal rights for rivers: Lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and India. Ecology and Society, 23(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09854-230107
  47. Plumwood, V. (2002). Environmental culture: The ecological crisis of reason. Routledge.
  48. Republic of Colombia Constitutional Court. (2016). Judgment T-622/16 (Atrato River case). Retrieved from https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/non-us-case-documents/2016/20161125_T-62216_judgment.pdf
  49. Stengers, I. (2010). Cosmopolitics I (R. Bononno, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
  50. Stengers, I. (2011). Cosmopolitics II (R. Bononno, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
  51. Stone, C. D. (1972). Should trees have standing? Toward legal rights for natural objects. Southern California Law Review, 45(2), 450–501.
  52. Tanasescu, M. (2013). The rights of nature in Ecuador: The making of an idea. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 70(6), 846–861. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2013.845715
  53. Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017, No. 7. Retrieved from EcoJurisprudence website: https://ecojurisprudence.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/New-Zealand_Te-Awa-Tupua-Act-2017_127.pdf
  54. Uttarakhand High Court. (2017). Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 126 of 2014: Judgment delivered on March 20, 2017. https://elaw.org/resource/salim-v-state-uttarakhand-writ-petition-pil-no126-2014-december-5-2016-and-march-20-2017
  55. Viveiros de Castro, E. (1998). Cosmological deixis and Amerindian perspectivism. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 4(3), 469–488. https://doi.org/10.2307/3034157
  56. Viveiros de Castro, E. (2004). Exchanging perspectives: The transformation of objects into subjects in Amerindian ontologies. Common Knowledge, 10(3), 463–484. https://doi.org/10.1215/0961754X-10-3-463
  57. Viveiros de Castro, E. (2014). Cannibal metaphysics (P. Skafish, Trans.). Univocal Publishing.
  58. Walsh, C. (2010). Development as buen vivir: Institutional arrangements and (de)colonial entanglements. Development, 53(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2009.93
  59. Wesche, P. (2021). Rights of nature in practice: A case study on the impacts of the Colombian Atrato River decision. Journal of Environmental Law, 33(3), 531–555. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqab021
  60. Whyte, K. (2018). Settler colonialism, ecology, and environmental injustice. Environment and Society: Advances in Research, 9(1), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2018.090109
  61. Wolch, J. (1998). Zoöpolis. In J. Emel & J. Wolch (Eds.), Animal geographies: Place, politics, and identity in the nature-culture borderlands (pp. 119–138). Verso.