Theorising War Waste
Theorising War Waste: Pollution, Weaponisation, and the Military
Lead Supervisor: Mirko Palestrino
Degree Programme: PhD Politics
Project Description
War is arguably one of the most polluting social activities. Even when narrowly understood as large-scale fighting, armed conflicts produce immense amounts of waste - both metaphorically, in terms of lives lost, and materially, in terms of environmental destruction.
When the focus is broadened to encompass the beformaths (i.e. war preparation) and aftermaths of fighting, the relationship between war and waste is found to be even deeper and more substantial. Large military apparatuses, such as the US military, are known to be the largest greenhouse gas emitters on Earth. Waste is also central to both the production and use of weaponry, both in the sense that war waste results in forms of “slow violence” that affects the environment and livelihoods long after the end of fighting, as well as in the sense that mineral extraction needed for the production of armaments is similarly toxic. Waste itself is sometimes used as a weapon of war: during World War Two, for example, Italian Fascists employed air-pollutants in their imperial campaign in Ethiopia, and the British government produced wartime regulations to recycle everyday waste and fuel the production of munitions. Finally, from Burn Pits to Scoarched-Earth tactics, the link between war and waste is even enshrined in linguistic expressions.
These myriadic, multi-faceted connections nothwithstanding, the broader relationship between war and waste remains undertheorised. As per the examples above, indeed, scholarship on military waste remains largely empirical in focus and crucially compartmentalised. Rather than unearthing yet another link between specific waste practices and war, this project seeks to connect the dots across existing connections. It asks: What does war tell us about waste, and, most importantly, what does waste tell us about war? What if we were to centre waste in the study of war, rather than treating waste as war’s by-product? Candidates are invited to develop a project proposal that addresses these questions on the war/waste nexus and/or raise other relvant ones. Whilst the project should include a substantial theory-building component, candidates should feel free to work creatively with or across empirical sites and approaches. These might span a number of different conflicts, focus on a set of martial practices, or even straddle the lines between war and peace, military and civilian, etc.
Depending on the chosen focus, a variety of (primarily qualitative) social scientific methodological approaches would be suitable, including (but not limited to) archival work, discourse and text analysis, concept analysis, interviews and focus groups, and ethnography. Candidates are encouraged to get in touch with Dr Palestrino to discuss plans and ideas ahead of submitting their proposals.
What we're looking for in a student
Candidates should hold a Master's Degree (or equivalent) in International Relations, War Studies, Human Geography, Sociology or adjecent discipline Familiarity with the academic traditions and literatures known as War & Society, Critical War Studies, and Critical Military Studies is desirable but not-essential. Similarly, some background knowledge in Social Scientific Research Methodology - or experience conducting and independent research project that aligns with the proposed one (methodologically or otherwise) is a plus. Training in specific social scientific methods as well as the abovementioned interdisciplinary academic traditions can be acquired during the programme - please discuss any identified training needs and gaps with the lead supervisor ahead of submitting your proposal. Candidates can also discuss co-supervisory options with the lead supervisor, especially for interdisciplinary projects that might benefit from cross-disciplinary teams.
Key words: War; Weaponisation; Military; Critical War Studies