By Andrea Ribeiro Hoffmann*

Commentary on the book by José Maurício Domingues

The most recent book by José Maurício Domingues, From pandemic to climate change, combines a sophisticated theoretical reflection of the contemporary context based on political sociology and the concept of collective subjectivities, which the author developed throughout his academic career, with a primordial empirical critical analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change.[I]

The book is a collection of articles by the author himself, published between 2020 and 2024, which seek to understand the contemporary social and political context and the possibilities for emancipatory transformation. In addition to the introduction, in which José Maurício Domingues outlines central aspects of his perspective, the book is divided into two parts: the first analyzes the issue of health and the COVID-19 pandemic, in three chapters, and the second part, the environmental and climate issue, also in three chapters.

This review focuses on the theme of climate change, and is structured around reflections on three central issues addressed in the book and particularly in the third, fourth and fifth chapters, respectively: the man-nature relationship, the concepts and frameworks (Framing) climate change, and dialogue with economic and development theories.

It is important to highlight that the analysis of climate change is developed in a transdisciplinary way, in dialogue with other disciplines of the social sciences and also open to engagement with the exact sciences, and “is based on the production of an immanent and ecumenical critique, that is, open to different critical points of view on modern civilization and rooted in the need to transform it, without in any way, on the other hand, discounting or discarding its enormous achievements, despite what is configured in many aspects as its unilateralism and deleterious consequences; politics is at its center” (p.11-12).

The underlying political perspective argues that “strategically, we should not oppose more localized and possibly more radical projects that call into question the growing “decarbonization consensus” to others that see the State as a fundamental agent in the fight against climate change, its prevention and mitigation, our adaptation to changes that are irreversible and the confrontation of its disruptive effects” (p.12), and is particularly welcome, given the current situation of political polarization and democratic crisis in several countries around the world, where the climate agenda has been captured by the extreme right through 'climate denialism' and/or 'climate obstructionism'.[ii] , making it impossible to reach minimum consensus to implement effective agendas on the necessary temporal and territorial scale.

Also crucial is the global character attributed to the transformation processes; as José Maurício Domingues states, it necessarily needs to encompass the entire human species; everyone has responsibilities, not just the bourgeoisie of industrialized countries, even if the distribution of the financial costs of the transition must be differentiated (p.15).

Human-Nature relationship

The man-nature relationship is a particularly relevant issue in the climate debate, which José Maurício Domingues works on in the fourth chapter (The political dimension of modernity and the insurmountable exteriority of nature) and sixth chapter (Critical Theory and Climate Change: Collective subjectivity, evolution and modernity).

His position in this debate is that (p.86): “in view of some attempts to overcome what I consider to be an insurmountable divide, I argue that the exteriority of “nature” vis-à-vis (modern) “society” is not easily dispelled”. Nature is thus understood as a social construction, and as having invaded social life, in particular the political dimension (p.92).

While I agree that the main alternative perspectives currently in existence generally end up objectifying nature, since humans are its spokespeople in one way or another,[iii] as José Maurício Domingues states, the discussion of the human-nature relationship is still an ongoing project in critical theory, and has implications not only for climate justice, but for democratic theory (p.111, p.143-144).

José Maurício Domingues explores in an original way the idea of ​​collective causality of nature based on the concept of collective subjectivity (p.103-104), but the dialogue with Milja Kurki, a theorist in the discipline of International Relations, could broaden the discussion on collective responsibilities.

Milja Kurki works with the concept of 'Response-Abilities' when reflecting on climate justice in dialogue with authors such as Bruno Latour, Donna Haraway and Karen Barad, in contrast to the concept responsibilities, and in order to emphasize the ontological plurality of the parties involved and their abilities to contribute to responses to climate change (Kurki 2024, p.1195).

As the author summarizes: “planetary response-abilities, are not an 'end' of a spatial scale category for 'wholes' but perhaps rather involve an attentiveness to ways of engaging worlds and becoming in relations. ” (Op. Cit., P.1199).

A dialogue between the concept of collective subjectivities and responsibilities-abilities seems to be fruitful for deepening reflection on the role of law and norms for implementing consensus and formulating public policies, and therefore, democracy, given the fluid ontological perspective embedded in both reflections.

Concepts and frames (Framing) climate change

The fifth chapter (Climate change and its lexicon: an analytical and critical view) is extremely didactic and enlightening as it critically reflects on the main concepts used in the climate debate: potential damage (hazard), vulnerability, risk, threat and resilience, and how they are articulated with the concepts of adaptation, mitigation and precaution.

As José Maurício Domingues states, concepts are polysemic, and his objective in the chapter is to analyze their mobilization in the field of climate change following the tradition of critical theory, that is, firstly elaborating an immanent critique bringing to light potential blockages and exits, and, subsequently, pointing out how power relations intertwine and sustain the production of these concepts (p.117), thus confronting their supposedly technical and neutral character.

The discussion on “Capitalocene”, another concept addressed in this chapter, will be addressed in the next session, but a suggestion that seems to be pertinent for the reflection on the concepts mentioned above would be the incorporation of the discussion on the 'securitization' processes of the environmental and climate agenda, based on the work of Barry Buzan (Buzan et al 1998, Falkner & Buzan 2024).

The concept of securitization goes beyond the concept of politicization, and refers to the elevation of the problem in question to the level of an existential threat, justifying extraordinary measures, which generally implies the suspension of rights and the involvement of the use of force.

The interface between the security and climate change agenda includes issues such as military interventions and peacekeeping operations in response to armed conflicts resulting from extreme climate events or the search for rare minerals needed for the energy transition, biopiracy (illegal trade, transportation, use and patenting of material originating from fauna and flora and the knowledge of traditional populations about the natural resources available to them), and irregular migrations resulting from extreme climate events.

The contemporary global situation, geopoliticized and permeated by militarized crises such as the war in Ukraine and the Middle East, demands deeper reflections on the meaning and social consequences of potential climate securitization processes (Ribeiro Hoffmann 2025); a dialogue on the concept of securitization by José Maurício Domingues could be an enriching path.

Dialogue with economic and development theories

Reflections on modernity and the capitalist system permeate the entire book, but the fifth and sixth chapters engage more directly with economic and development theories. The first step is to analyze the concepts of Anthropocene and Capitalocene as part of the lexicon of climate change.

The Anthropocene refers to the impact of man on the Earth system as originally defined by the Dutch chemist, Paul Crutzen. However, as José Maurício Domingues states: “There would not be a generic Anthropocene, but rather a Capitalocene, in which the incessant drive of capitalist accumulation would imply a continuous and indeed increasing intervention in nature (or the simultaneous constitution of nature and society through capitalism, dialectically)” (p.128).

The problematization of capitalism as a determining factor in climate change is not consensual. Paul Crutzen, for example, prefers to emphasize the 'Great acceleration' of economic and population growth generated by industrial processes and the use of oil and gas, which also includes the effects of 'real socialism'.

Despite his criticism of capitalism, José Maurício Domingues assesses its future reproduction as uncertain, “nothing tells us that it is intrinsically incapable of resuming a pattern of partial, “anthropogenetic” intensive accumulation, related to services such as health, education, entertainment and social media […] As unlikely as it may be, perhaps capitalism can indeed reform its relationship with “nature”, producing the material dimension of social life in a more sustainable way, regenerating it in some sense and mitigating climate change, not to mention adapting to it (partially in a “post-anthropogenetic” mode, one might suggest)” (p.160).

In other words, the author argues that ““ecomodernizing” perspectives based on merely technological solutions to the Anthropocene must be criticized” (p.16), but we should not “suppose that we can rule out techno-scientific solutions of great sophistication and complexity, which will undoubtedly be necessary” (p.16).

For José Maurício Domingues, it would be important, therefore, to advance alternatives with creativity, to combine local solutions with global ones, and in this sense there is room for dialogue between heterodox social democratic perspectives (New Deals green), from the field of ecological socialism, and 'good living', a concept originating from the indigenous cultures of the Andes, especially Quechua and Aymara, although it distances itself from simplistic or romantic responses.

Ecosocialism and ‘buen vivir’ are seen as lacking effective power today, especially without the support of state power. They may be interesting locally, but they do not have the capacity for large-scale transformation. The proposed solution would therefore be a combination of innovative, decentralized initiatives and coalitions that also include social democrats: “In this great collective reformist subjectivity there is room, in any case, to fight for socialism or other radical projects.” (p.164).

Finally, José Maurício Domingues criticizes the relationship of the international climate regime with the capitalist system. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the concept of epistemic community, of which the IPCC would be a focal point, are seen as dependent on the power relations that constitute modernity and capitalism (p.134).

Although I agree with the limitations of market solutions, and the limitations of the existing IPCC, while recognizing its crucial historical role (Haas 2015, Ribeiro Hoffmann 2024), I consider that the concept of epistemic communities, as defined by Haas (1992, p.3): “a network of professionals who have recognized expertise and competence on a given topic and who claim authority over knowledge that is relevant to the formulation of policies linked to that topic or field”[iv] , is also polysemic, and therefore, an expansion of the theoretical dialogue with the concept of collective subjectivities is valid.

In this way, it would be possible to imagine possibilities for transforming the consensus generated within the IPCC itself, for example, by including in this space social scientists with alternative views to orthodox economic perspectives.

Collective subjectivities and COP30 in Belém

To conclude, the collection From pandemic to climate change consolidates the practical application of José Mauricio Domingues' theoretical construction on modernity and the contemporary social context. The concept of collective subjectivities is mobilized in the fields of health and climate change, thus contributing both to critical reflection and action strategies, which can and should be adopted by both governments and social actors.

Greater political engagement is indeed crucial given the current context of democratic crisis and multilateralism, and a growing geopoliticization of global politics and securitization of fields such as health and climate change.

Reading José Maurício Domingues' book offers several entry points for mobilization, including in view of COP30, to be held in Belém in November 2025. As he states: “The task that is finally outlined is how to articulate these two deadlines, the immediate and the long-term, without becoming paralyzed or simply embracing restricted changes.” (p.138).

*Andrea Ribeiro Hoffmann is a professor at the Institute of International Relations at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (Puc-Rio).

Reference

José Mauricio Domingues. From pandemic to climate change, Rio de Janeiro, Morula, 2024, 196 pages. [https://amzn.to/4kZlXN9]

REFERENCES

Budini, T (2024) Institutional dismantling and incitement to violence. Bolsonaro's environmental and climate agenda. In: Multilateralism in the crosshairs: The radical right in Brazil and Latin America, edited by Herz, M and G.Summa. Rio de Janeiro: Hucitec.

Buzan B., Waever O. & de Wilde J. (1998).Security: The New Framework. Harvester Wheatsheaf.

de Campos Mello, F. (2024). Anti-environmentalism. Radical right and international governance. In: Multilateralism in the crosshairs: The radical right in Brazil and Latin America, edited by Herz, M and G.Summa. Rio de Janeiro: Hucitec.

Falkner, Robert and Barry Buzan (eds.) Great Powers, Climate Change and Global Environmental Responsibilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press

HAAS, PM (2015). Epistemic communities, constructivism, and international environmental politics. Routledge

Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International organization, 46

Kurki, M. (2024). Planetary justice reconsidered: developing response-abilities in planetary relations. Environmental Politics, 1-20.

Maldonado, D. B. (2019). Radical environmental constitutionalism and cultural diversity in Latin America. The rights of nature and good living in Ecuador and Bolivia. DERCHO DEL STATE MAGAZINE, (42), 3-23.

McHugh, LH, Lemos, MC, & Morrison, TH (2021). Risk? Crisis? Emergency? Implications of the new climate emergency framing for governance and policy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 12(6), and 736.

Pecharroman, C. L. (2018). Rights of nature: Rivers that can stand in court. Resources, 7(1), 13.

Pereira, J.C., & Viola, E. (2024). From protagonist to laggard, from pariah to phoenix: Emergence, decline, and re‐emergence of Brazilian climate change policy, 2003–2023. Latin American Policy, 15

Ribeiro Hoffmann (2025). Climate change, security and international crime: a complex interaction. In, Beyond No-Return. Kas: Policy Papers 25.issn 2176-297x

Ribeiro Hoffmann, A (2024) Climate Change Cooperation in Latin American Regionalism in Ribeiro Hoffmann, A., Paula Sandrin and Yannis Doukas, Climate Change in Comparative Regionalism: EU and Latin America, S.Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Toni, A., & Feitosa Chaves, C. (2022). Bolsonaro's far-right populist environmental and climate diplomacy. Latin American Policy, 13(2), 464-483.

Notes

[I] The concept of collective subjectivities is summarized in the book as follows: “(1) Collective subjectivities — or collectivities, simply — are social systems understood as systems of interaction. These interactions occur between individuals, but also between collectivities. (2) Collectivities are found in any area of ​​social life, with different scopes. (3) Although collectivities should not be considered “actors” and we should not assume that they “act” or are constituted like human beings, they are not passive — they move, exhibit movement or block it. (4) Collectivities have properties that result from the combination of these individuals and subsystems (other collectivities) internal or perpendicular to them. Although such properties are not (“methodologically”) reducible to the individual and the subsystems, they also do not amount to something greater than both (hence the imprecise use of “emergent properties”). (5) Collective causality derives from the movement of collectivities, their collective causal impact consisting of one of these properties. (6) Collectivities have varying levels of centering. They depend on their capacity for organization (produced internally or externally and permeated by power relations) and self-awareness, that is, self-recognition (which includes how they symbolically define themselves and are defined by others). Their various levels of centering imply various levels of intentionality. (7) Collectivities exert a mutual causal impact, a collective causality between each other and on individuals considered singularly, as well as on the material world. Such impact is largely responsible for social processes and dynamics. (8) Collectivities have four dimensions: symbolic-hermeneutic, material, power and social space-time (built on material space-time). The concept of collective subjectivity is therefore a very specific way to theorize social systems, multidimensional and which deals with “agency” beyond individual action.” (p.145-146).

[ii] De Campos Mello (2024, p. 115) argues that climate and scientific denialism has been replaced by climate obstructionism. This is defined by Edwards et all (2023, p.1) as: “campaigns and other policy actions led by well-organized and financed networks of corporate and other actors who have actively sought to prevent global and/or national action on climate change over the past four decades”. On the domestic and international climate policy of the Bolsonaro government, see also Toni & Feitosa (2022), Budini (2024) and Pereira & Viola (2024).

[iii] An example would be the category of guardianship or guardians in the discussion on the rights of nature (see for example Pecharroman 2018 and Maldonado 2019).

[iv] The most complete definition, in the original (Haas 1992, p.3): An epistemic community is a network of professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area. Although an epistemic community may consist of professionals from a variety of disciplines and backgrounds, they have (1) a shared set of normative and principled beliefs, which provide a value-based rationale for the social action of community members; (2) shared causal beliefs, which are derived from their analysis of practices leading or contributing to a central set of problems in their domain and which then serves as the basis for elucidating the multiple linkages between possible policy actions and desired outcomes; (3) shared notions of validity—that is, intersubjective, internally defined criteria for weighing and validating knowledge in the domain of their expertise; and (4) a common policy enterprise—that is, a set of common practices associated with a set of problems to which their professional competence is directed, presumably out of the conviction that human welfare will be enhanced as a consequence.

the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE