Clement to the Corinthians (on climate change?): sojourning as a theologico-political alternative to environmental emergency rhetoric
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After decades of critical scholarship calling attention to the dangers of emergency powers, many critical theorists and political activists are now turning to those same tools to combat climate change. The Climate Emergency Declaration movement advocates directly for the declaration of political states of emergency in jurisdictions across the globe. This article intervenes to recall the danger of emergency powers, with particular attention paid to the crucial role played by the political state of emergency (originally l’etat de siege fictif) in nineteenth-century France in the development of emergency power doctrine and twentieth-century authoritarian sovereignty. The second half of the article looks for an alternative, arguing that the radical and emancipatory response to the threat of climate change ought to be grounded in a political theology of ‘sojourning’, rather than the exception, drawing on the First Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, as well as the commentary on that letter by Giorgio Agamben. This theologico-political response to the ethics of climate change furthers the scholarly debate on political theology and International Relations theory by engaging one of the crucial challenges of the twenty-first century and by developing a potential model for theological discussions of ethical problems beyond religious moralising.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".