While many of the processes of ending that we explore are tragic and violent, our research is also keenly attuned to the fact that not all change is a loss, and that the ending of some worlds is necessary for other lives and possibilities to flourish. As such we also consider the many ways that multiscaled systems of violence and the worlds that enable them might be deliberately and actively brought to an end.

As a necessary dimension of attending to endings, our work is also centrally engaged with processes of reworlding: diverse sites of multispecies resistance, recuperation, and recovery, both enduring and emergent. We are mindful that every ending is also a beginning, every unravelling is also a reravelling—the question is often how, for whom, to whose benefit, and at what cost?

But, our approach insists that processes of unworlding must not be ignored or rushed through; that there is an obligation not to turn away from the grief and mourning that often accompany process of change and loss; and that there is a profound importance and power to dwelling with processes of unravelling, destruction, and ending. It is only through an honest reckoning with what has been and will still be lost that we can build affirmative visions for the future.

Across a variety of different contexts, our work is united by a common interest in the more-than-human dimensions of endings: the diverse agencies—human and nonhuman, living and nonliving—that are involved and at stake in these processes. It is also grounded in a close attention to the situated/contextual entanglements of the material and the semiotic, and consequently to the simultaneously ethical, political, affective, ontological, and epistemological dimensions of world making and unmaking as multispecies praxes.