Hi all, back again w/ another post for zee blog. Been doing more of the same with my advisor; working my way through various texts, producing write-ups on said texts, proofreading Sarah's work, etc. Shortly hereafter I'll be accompanying her for interviews of potential interns for her Confluencecenter Fellowship, which should be an interesting window into academic and community-minded endeavors. In the past week, I've worked with Michel Foucault's Archaeology of Knowledge, Mark Carey's book In the Shadow of Melting Glaciers, and Paul Robbins' essay The Practical Politics of Knowing: State Environmental Knowledge and Local Political Economy, an essay about the nuanced epistemological differences regarding ecological change held by local and bureaucratic actors in India's Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary. Robbins is also the author of the book Political Ecology, which I've read several chapters from (and of course, produced extensive notes on for the purposes of my and Sarah's projects). The book has provided me with several sources of inspiration theme-wise for my upcoming final product, a narrative that will show my knowledge of critical discourse analysis as applied to glaciology, which field - as I've been reading in the book by Mark Carey - demonstrates some pretty serious overlaps with some of the issues discussed in Political Ecology. I'll elaborate on some of those overlaps in a different post, but for now, here are some of the ideas in I've found to be compelling in Robbins' book, taken from the two chapters I found to be most relevant to my project and this blog:
In Chapter 1, "The Hatchet and the Seed," Robbins begins by offering a variety of definitions for political ecology, including “a confluence between ecologically rooted social science and the principles of political economy” (Peet and Watts 1996). Political ecology is concerned with many lines of inquiry, such as contesting “apolitical” or Malthusian models of ecoscarcity, asserting they are resultant of political and economic dynamics rather than unchangeable natural laws. The field contests the argument that ecological crises occurring in primarily underdeveloped areas stem from inadequate adoption of “modern” economic techniques, a line of reasoning often used for political gains, such as the usurping of local controls over land. Political ecology accepts that environmental change has various costs and benefits which are distributed unequally among groups and individuals, resulting in or reinforcing social and economic inequities, which in turn hold political implications in terms of altered powers. Political ecology often functions as critique, devaluing ecological “myths,” or narratives promulgated about nature by hegemonic knowledge sources such as media or the state. Lastly, it exists as alternative development strategy: a re-understanding of how systems are constructed in order to reclaim traditional practices, or simply assert alternative, more sustainable and equitable ways of managing nature.
Afterwards, in Chapter 6, "Construction of Nature," Robbins identifies the social factors at play governing our perceptions of nature, exploring the idea of natural objects as “expressions of human imagination, suffused with political and cultural influences.” Referencing Foucault, he understands the construction of different “categories of reality” to be politically charged, linked with “the emergence of new authorities and institutions.” He uses soil erosion as an example; while for the most part scientifically debunked, soil erosion continues to exist as a social construction affording colonial land managers and state bureaucrats control over others’ behavior, but in the name of “soil conservation.” Robbins details human classification systems as constructed phenomena, often arbitrary and serving narrow political interests; he notes that what is regarded as scientific truth is prone to change with “the political and social wind,” at times raising conflicts as to whose classifications, scientific or local, to accept as the dominant reality. Robbins identifies two main types of constructivism relevant to political ecology; the first, radical, or “hard” constructivism, sees social context alone as determining humans’ understandings of nature. Hard constructivism is hence seen as restrictive, because it “disallows reference to non-human actors in explaining outcomes,” maintaining the human symbolic and social orders to be unquestionably the dominant reality. The second, and more common type is known as “soft” constructivism, wherein political ecologists understand the objective world as not only extant but also free of human categorization, however “filtered through conceptual systems and scientific methods that are socially conditioned.” Soft constructivism is aware that theories regarding natural systems have “consistently reflected the prevailing social languages and assumptions of their times”; thus, it tends to place emphasis on the politically driven misunderstandings of objective facts - ideas like “race,” “desertification,” “soil erosion,” etc. Social institutional constructivism, a subset of soft constructivism, views these biases as necessarily a part of scientific practice, but not definitive of the conditions of the natural world; instead, the goal is to “purge,” over time, these wrong “social” theories about ecology. Robbins notes that evidence for the construction of nature is “rarely seen fully embodied or realized in a single form,” but rather communicated in parts by language used in media, music, conversation, and scientific documents. Further, he identifies cartography as heavily prone to social bias and contributing to this constructed version of nature, in which the act of choosing what natural features to emphasize involves power-laden assumptions, and can be used both in favor of or against native land rights. Lastly, Robbins addresses the competing narratives of ecological change held by different social groups, explaining that “rifts in environmental interpretation follow existing political divisions,” further emphasizing the extent to which ecology is an inherently political affair.
Myriad nexuses (nexi?) can be made between these elements of political ecology and the field of glaciology, which I'll elaborate on most likely next week, with probably some info of Foucault's thrown in for good measure. A heads-up for that then: think about the "construction" of natural disasters related to glacier retreat; think about the consequences; think something called disaster capitalism. That's all for now! In the next couple weeks I'll be turning towards actual discourse analysis methods, and demonstrating them here on the blog as applied to sources regarding Pascua Lama and the region's glaciers, so stay tuned (stay critical!)!
In Chapter 1, "The Hatchet and the Seed," Robbins begins by offering a variety of definitions for political ecology, including “a confluence between ecologically rooted social science and the principles of political economy” (Peet and Watts 1996). Political ecology is concerned with many lines of inquiry, such as contesting “apolitical” or Malthusian models of ecoscarcity, asserting they are resultant of political and economic dynamics rather than unchangeable natural laws. The field contests the argument that ecological crises occurring in primarily underdeveloped areas stem from inadequate adoption of “modern” economic techniques, a line of reasoning often used for political gains, such as the usurping of local controls over land. Political ecology accepts that environmental change has various costs and benefits which are distributed unequally among groups and individuals, resulting in or reinforcing social and economic inequities, which in turn hold political implications in terms of altered powers. Political ecology often functions as critique, devaluing ecological “myths,” or narratives promulgated about nature by hegemonic knowledge sources such as media or the state. Lastly, it exists as alternative development strategy: a re-understanding of how systems are constructed in order to reclaim traditional practices, or simply assert alternative, more sustainable and equitable ways of managing nature.
Afterwards, in Chapter 6, "Construction of Nature," Robbins identifies the social factors at play governing our perceptions of nature, exploring the idea of natural objects as “expressions of human imagination, suffused with political and cultural influences.” Referencing Foucault, he understands the construction of different “categories of reality” to be politically charged, linked with “the emergence of new authorities and institutions.” He uses soil erosion as an example; while for the most part scientifically debunked, soil erosion continues to exist as a social construction affording colonial land managers and state bureaucrats control over others’ behavior, but in the name of “soil conservation.” Robbins details human classification systems as constructed phenomena, often arbitrary and serving narrow political interests; he notes that what is regarded as scientific truth is prone to change with “the political and social wind,” at times raising conflicts as to whose classifications, scientific or local, to accept as the dominant reality. Robbins identifies two main types of constructivism relevant to political ecology; the first, radical, or “hard” constructivism, sees social context alone as determining humans’ understandings of nature. Hard constructivism is hence seen as restrictive, because it “disallows reference to non-human actors in explaining outcomes,” maintaining the human symbolic and social orders to be unquestionably the dominant reality. The second, and more common type is known as “soft” constructivism, wherein political ecologists understand the objective world as not only extant but also free of human categorization, however “filtered through conceptual systems and scientific methods that are socially conditioned.” Soft constructivism is aware that theories regarding natural systems have “consistently reflected the prevailing social languages and assumptions of their times”; thus, it tends to place emphasis on the politically driven misunderstandings of objective facts - ideas like “race,” “desertification,” “soil erosion,” etc. Social institutional constructivism, a subset of soft constructivism, views these biases as necessarily a part of scientific practice, but not definitive of the conditions of the natural world; instead, the goal is to “purge,” over time, these wrong “social” theories about ecology. Robbins notes that evidence for the construction of nature is “rarely seen fully embodied or realized in a single form,” but rather communicated in parts by language used in media, music, conversation, and scientific documents. Further, he identifies cartography as heavily prone to social bias and contributing to this constructed version of nature, in which the act of choosing what natural features to emphasize involves power-laden assumptions, and can be used both in favor of or against native land rights. Lastly, Robbins addresses the competing narratives of ecological change held by different social groups, explaining that “rifts in environmental interpretation follow existing political divisions,” further emphasizing the extent to which ecology is an inherently political affair.
Myriad nexuses (nexi?) can be made between these elements of political ecology and the field of glaciology, which I'll elaborate on most likely next week, with probably some info of Foucault's thrown in for good measure. A heads-up for that then: think about the "construction" of natural disasters related to glacier retreat; think about the consequences; think something called disaster capitalism. That's all for now! In the next couple weeks I'll be turning towards actual discourse analysis methods, and demonstrating them here on the blog as applied to sources regarding Pascua Lama and the region's glaciers, so stay tuned (stay critical!)!
No comments:
Post a Comment