ABSTRACT
This conclusion presents a set of concluding thoughts on key concepts discussed in this book. The contributors to the book make productive instalments to the discussion of the ways in which International Relations (IR) can move beyond such anthropocentric partitioning of the world. Apart from debating the content and meaning of the term 'posthuman', the other question that preoccupies the interlocutors of the posthuman turn in the study of world affairs is precisely about the nature of IR. The view of critics such as Chandler is that the posthuman move undermines the possibility of analyzing human agency, and leaves us in a world of 'blind necessity'. The posthuman turn in the study of world affairs illuminates that the complex patterns of global life resonate with relationality and dynamism, rather than the static and spatial arrangements implicit in the fetishized currency of self-other/centre-periphery/hegemon-challenger models underpinning the binary metanarratives of IR.
