Call for communications

The symposium is scheduled for December 9, 10 and 11 and will take place by videoconference on the Youtube site of L'IHEAL-CREDA ( See link here )

Political ecology in Latin America

Balance of epoch and transnational debates

 ***

International symposium

December 9, 10 & 11, 2020, on the Youtube site of l'Iheal-Creda

 

Summary

Over the past thirty years, political ecology has experienced rapid development in Latin America as a result of a great diversity of approaches, views, and militant practices. Consequently, the discipline is currently in the process of academic institutionalization and shows a high level of consolidation as a helpful framework for intellectual and political analysis.  The aim of the international symposium is to review the political ecology panorama in Latin America, trying to: 1) identify differences and similarities between Latin American political ecology and Anglo-Saxon approaches; (2) analyse its lack of impact in French social sciences; 3) make a first assesment of the internal diversity of Latin American political ecology, with special attention to the development of particular national or regional trajectories and, 4) identify topics, emerging agendas and new themes, as well as the to debate different ways in which the discipline is reconfiguring.

Keynote speakers confirmed :

Susana Hecht (University of California LA, USA), Joan Martinez-Allier (Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain), Gabriela Merlinsky (UBA, CONICET Argentina), Diana Ojeda (University of the Andes, Colombia), Jose Augusto Padua (Univ. Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), Erik Swyngedouw (University of Manchester, UK).

The rise of environmental social movements promoted a great diversity of studies that allowed political ecology – an Anglo-Saxon discipline in its origins – to acquire an original regional expression. The current situation in Latin America offers a great opportunity to undertake a medium-term assessment of the field.  Latin American political ecology has nurtured the continent’s "left-turn" experienced during the 2000s, motivating a series of internal debates and rearrangements, which arise from a problematic relationship with "progressive governments" and their economic policies. Whether in Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Chile or Brazil, political ecologists are often linked to left-wing movements, confronting the revival of extractivism implemented by some governments, initially elected for their critical view of this development model. The return of extractive or neo-extractive economies, the presence of a radical opposition to some Latin American governments, and the increasing activist’s criminalization outline a new stage in this process.

The academic institutionalization of political ecology in Latin America is underway, as we can see in some recent review publications that outline the field at regional or national levels (Alimonda et al., 2017, vol.1, vol.2; Durand Smith et al., 2012; Busts et al. 2015). Other indicators of this trend are the formation, in 2001, of the CLACSO Political Ecology Working Group and 25^th anniversary of the journal Ecología Política, which reached its number 50 (December 2015, No. 50 offers a trajectory review). In the same way, symposia, conferences, and specialized courses on Political Ecology have multiplied in almost all Latin American countries, confirming this trend.

However, Latin American political ecology remains fairly absent and is poorly discussed in the French academic community. So, it is time to propose - in collaboration with our Latin American and European colleagues - a reflection and critical balance of what constitutes an important movement in the social sciences.

The concurrence of the actual increase of environmental conflicts, the upsurge of authoritarian governments, the institutionalization of political ecology, and its invisibility in the French academy, conforms the perfect setting for organizing, in 2020, an international symposium that could critically reflects on these transnational debates and dialogues.  The aim of the symposium is to analyze the intellectual circulation of Latin American political ecology, the different national trajectories of the discipline as well as possible blind spots and emerging issues.

1- The specificity of Latin American political ecology in relation the Anglo-Saxon tradition

The singularity of the political ecology created by Southern researchers (Bryant R.L., Bailey S., 1997, Martínez Allier, 2002) is increasingly gaining attention, while its main exponents emphasize the relevance of highlighting Latin American political ecology’s important contributions. The tendency to criticize the idea of political ecology as a research program originated in English-speaking centers and exported to the "periphery" (Bryant, 2015) meets Southern researchers’ intellectual orientation. This approach is particularly prevalent in Latin American political ecology writings that often claim its regional distinctiveness (Alimonda et al., 2017) or propose a specific link with political ecology of the South. Therefore, the first task of the symposium is to gain a better understanding and discuss the singularity of political ecology studies in Latin America inspired by Latin American (contemporary, decolonial or Marxist) thought. Different visions from Latin America or other regions, which offers reflections or discuss this history in novel ways are welcome, as well as exchanges and shared stories with Anglo-Saxon political ecology. Through this, the Symposium aims to examine how these differences are negotiated, and the processes through which unification and provincialization are shaped or can be questioned.

In Europe and Latin America, multiple categories are used to describe environmental social science studies.  The analysis of "environmental conflicts" and/or "environmental justice" (Merlinsky 2013), the study of knowledge and nature representations or, in general, critical studies located between "environment and development", are directly related to political ecology but can also deviate from it.  At the same time, the discipline struggles to maintain an integrated research program and to balance its various components, facing many internal criticisms (Walker P.A., 2005; - 2006; - 2007).

Therefore, the debate will also focus on the difficulties to delineate the horizons of Latin American political ecology and to explain the great internal diversity of their studies (between nations and subjects).

2- Academic circulation and misunderstandings between Latin America and France

How can we understand the difficulties that the French academy has to engage with Latin American Political Ecology? Political Ecology in its Anglo-Saxon version is now institutionalized in academia, especially in the United States, where several universities has departments devoted to it. At the same time, "French" political ecology, with roots in a long culture of economic, social and political environmental criticism, is not present in university structures like its American counterpart. French political ecology is instead arranged around a political arena.

Even when exchanges between the two political ecology traditions are becoming more intense, the prevalence of English, as the preferred language, exacerbates possible tensions between the ecologie politique and political ecology (Chartier Rodary, 2015). For some researchers, this discipline would be more like a "militants’ fashion" and, as such, it would be losing their academic credibility (Laslaz 2017).

Only one book about political ecology has been published in France (Gautier and Benjaminsen, 2012) and the late appropriation of the field in the country is still a poorly explored subject (Benjaminsen, Svarstad, 2009; Gautier and Benjaminsen, 2012, see the site Political Ecology and recent initiatives such as  ATECOPOL  or  Justice Environnementale).  Recently, some studies than explored the similarities between political ecology and French social science studies (beyond "tags")  were published - (Gautier  and Hautdidier, 2015; Chartier and Rodary, 2015), but the presence of Latin American political ecology in French journals and books is still very limited: the only French book on political ecology does not include chapters about Latin America and only a short issue of the Ecologie et politique journal is dedicated to political ecology in Latin America (Chartier and Lowry, 2013).

Despite this situation, the number of French researchers who adopt or assume a political ecology approach (openly or without invoking its name) is growing. This approach has become very popular among undergraduate and graduate students and young researchers.  In this way, political ecology tools have helped to unsettle a kind of analytical conservatism on environmental issues, grounded in the sustainable development paradigm.  With a clear delay in relation to the Anglo-Saxon world and, especially to Latin America, today we find in the Frech academy debates on the politicization of science and the relationship between activist and scientific spheres, common subjects in political ecoloresearch.

In this way, it is urgent to spread Latin American political ecology beyond its region of origin and promote a better understanding the difficulties of its adoption by French academia. How can we comprehend the obstacles for the circulation of political ecology in France? Presentations should examine specific characteristics of Latin American political ecology that may account for its difficult adoption in France, but papers that explore the effect of the structure of French environmental social science studies are also invited.

3 - The national/regional trajectories of political ecology

We are interested in analyzing the different national and regional trajectories of political ecology in Latin America.  Proposals should describe and examine their specificities, emphasizing intellectual affiliations, main objects of concern (forests and territories, extractivism, pollution, conflicts around water, etc.) and/or the influence of national political trajectories on political ecology development. Proposals related to Caribbean countries and its region will be especially welcome. Comparative studies between different national trajectories are also invited.

4 - Emerging problems of analysis in political ecology and neglected themes

The analysis and discussion over emerging topics in political ecology is important, since the discipline has been enriched by  other  research programmes, such as as urban studies  (Swyngedouw and Heynen, 2003;  Keil, 2003), ecological economics (Martinez Alier and Roca Jusmet, 2013), extractivism (Alimonda, 2011; Svampa, 2019, 2019 b, Lander, 2013, Acosta, 2009), water (Swyngedouw 2016), social studies of science (CST, see  Forsyth T., 2003; Goldman et al. 2011), decolonial studies and "relational ontologies" (Quijano, 2014, De la Cadena 2010, Blaser, 2013, Escobar, 1998). Some approaches occasionally remain on the margin to political ecology. Emerging topics are, among others, the link between environment and health, the intersection between political ecology and CSTs (social studies of science), the interaction with "political economy" studies as well as with the ontological turn and non-human agency.

It is also important to highlight unexplored or underdeveloped topics, like the gender dimension which, in some analyses, is not well developed. This is possibly because of the prevalence of structural analysis, which tends to focus on the interrelationships between development and the appropriation of the environment at a global/regional level and to the prevalence of male authors in reference texts. Proposals over the different shapes of feminism and ecofeminism, about the central place of women in socio-ecological struggles and processes of collective self-organization, particularly in anti-extractivist struggles for the defense of the commons, are very welcome.

Presentations on emerging topics are expected to answer the following questions: How can the main concepts of "politics" and "ecology" be distinguished from other concepts, movements and claims? How do new frameworks and questions relate to the specificity of Latin American debates? This type of presentations will offer the opportunity to discuss if political ecology would be able to transform and renew itself or, on the contrary, whether it will be replaced by other streams of analysis.

 ALIMONDA, H., 2011, La naturaleza colonizada, CLACSO - Consejo Latinoam. de Ciencias Sociales.

ALIMONDA H., C. TORO PEREZ et F. MARTIN, 2017, Ecología Política Latinoamericana. Pensamiento crítico, diferencia latinoamericana y rearticulación epistémica, CLACSO; México: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana; Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: Ciccus.

BENJAMINSEN T.A., SVARSTAD, H., 2009, Qu’est-ce que la “political ecology ?, Natures sciences sociétés, 17 (1) : 3-11.

BLAIKIE P. BROOKFIELD H., 1987, Land degradation and society, Methuen &Co, London/New York.

BLASER M., 2013, Notes Towards a Political Ontology of ‘Environmental’ Conflicts, In Contested Ecologies: Dialogues in the South on Nature and Knowledge, edited by Lesley Green, Cape Town, South Africa: Human Sciences Research Council Press, 13–27.

BRYANT R.L., BAILEY S., 1997, Third world political ecology, Routledge, London, New York. Bunker.

BRYANT, R. L. (ed.), 2015, The International Handbook of Political Ecology, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

BUSTOS GALLERDO B. y PRIETO, M. J., 2015, Ecología poltica en Chile. Poder , naturaleza, conocimiento y propriedad, Santiago, Chile: Universidad de Chile.

CHARTIER, D., et M. LÖWY, 2013, L'Amérique latine, terre de luttes socioécologiques, Ecologie & politique, 46 (1),13-20.

CHARTIER D. and E. RODARY, 2015, Globalizing French écologie politique: a political necessity, chap 39, , in Bryant, R. L. (ed.), 2015, The International Handbook of Political Ecology, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 547-560.

DE LA CADENA M., 2010, Indigenous Cosmopolitics in the Andes: Conceptual Reflections beyond ‘Politics. Cultural Anthropology, 25 ( 2): 334–70.

FORSYTH T., 2003, Critical political ecology. The politics of environmental science, Routledge, London - New York. 320 p.

DURAND L., FIGUEROA F. y GUZMAN M. (eds.), 2012, La naturaleza en contexto. Hacia una ecología política mexicana, CEIICH-UNAM, CRIM-UNAM y El Colegio de San Luis. 336 pp.

ESCOBAR, A. , 1998, La invención del tercer mundo, Editorial Norma, 475 p.

GAUTIER D. et T.A. BENJAMINSEN (eds.), 2012, Environnement, discours et pouvoir. L’approche Political ecology, Paris, Editons Quae.

GAUTIER D. and B. HAUTDIDIER, 2015, Connecting political ecology and French geography: on tropicality and radical thought, in Bryant, R. L. (ed.), The International Handbook of Political Ecology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

GOLDMAN M., P. NADASDY, M. TURNER, (eds), 2011, Knowing Nature: Convsersations at the Intersection of Political Ecology and Science Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

KEIL, R., 2003, Urban political ecology» Urban Geography, 24(8) : 723-777

LANDER, E y otros, 2013,  Promesas en su laberinto: cambios y continuidades en los gobiernos progresistas de América Latina, La Paz: IEE; CEDLA; CIM, 396 p.

LASLAZ, L., 2017, Jalons pour une géographie politique de l’environnement, L’Espace Politique, n^o 32 (septembre).https://doi.org/10.4000/espacepolitique.4344.

MARTINEZ ALIER J., 2014 [2002], L’écologisme des pauvres. Une étude des conflits environnementaux dans le monde, Les Petits matins/Inst. Veblen, 670 p.

MARTINEZ ALIER J. ,Y. ROCA JUSMET, J., 2013, Economía ecológica y política ambiental, México, Fondo de Cultura Económica.

MERLINSKY, G, 2013, Cartografías del conflicto ambiental en Argentina. Buenos Aires: CLACSO – Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales.

QUIJANO, A., 2014, Colonialidad del poder, eurocentrismo y América Latina En: Cuestiones y horizontes : de la dependencia histórico-estructural a la colonialidad/descolonialidad del poder, Buenos Aires : CLACSO.http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/clacso/se/20140507042402/eje3-8.pdf

ROBBINS P., 2004/2011, Political ecology: a critical introduction, Blackwell, Oxford, 264 p.

SVAMPA Maristella, 2019, Las fronteras del neoextractivismo en América Latina. Conflictos socioambientales, giro ecoterritorial y nuevas dependencias, CALAS, 145 p.

SVAMPA, M., 2019b, Neo-extractivism in Latin America: Socio-environmental Conflicts, the Territorial Turn, and New Political Narratives (Elements in Politics and Society in Latin America), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

SWYNGEDOUW, E.; HEYNEN, N. C, 2003, Urban political ecology, justice, and the politics of scale, Antipode, 35(5), p. 898-918.

SWYNGEDOUW E., 2015, Liquid power: contested hydro-modernities in 20th century spain, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

WALKER P.A., 2005, Political ecology: where is the ecology?, Progress in human geography, 29 (1) : 73-82. --------- 2006, Political ecology: where is the policy?, Progress in human geography, 30 (3) : 382-395;------- 2007, Political ecology: where is the politics?, Progress in human geography, 31 (3) : 363-369.