Atmospheric fury, shadows of agonism, and the ethics of abolishing worlds

This commentary engages Daniel Paiva’s (2026) proposal to think the ‘right to atmosphere’ in agonistic terms. First, drawing on Michel Serres, it elaborates the role of turbulent ‘fury’ in the elemental constitution of atmospheres. It argues the fury fundamentally troubles agonistic pluralism by showing how worlds are broken, ended and produced through materialities that do not easily lend themselves to what remains central to the ‘right to atmosphere’. After looking at the collective equivalence of fury, the commentary turns, second, to the three shadows of agonism – intrinsic atmospheric seductions, unruly movements irreducible to identifiable origins or parties to a conflict, and brutal colonial shadows shattering the promises of productive conflict – problematising the assumption that conflict necessarily functions as a creative, productive and capacitating force. Finally, drawing on abolitionist thought, it asks whether the solution to unequal access to atmospheres, one capable of acknowledging the anti-oppressive ethics of care underlined by Paiva, is inclusion and participation, or the abolition of oppressive worlds.