The need for over-ambition

Over the past four weeks, we have demanded a great deal of our texts’ authors. We have insisted that they attend with equal mindfulness and dedication to the three concerns which we have identified as the pillars of Political Ecology: Nature, Structure, and Agency. We have pried into their methodologies and wrinkled our noses when these were not extrapolated to our curiosities’ content. We have called for the exposition of counter-narratives but called foul at ‘mere critiques’. And we have expected them to present us with workable, implementable solutions to the issues which they had just illuminated us on. No more, but certainly no less. Some of them – notably Young, Mehta, and Robertson, to name a few – have succeeded at meeting our exacting standards. Others, less so. It is my feeling that, in this final week of readings, we have reached the pinnacle of lofty expectations. Not only should all of the aforementioned be delivered within a text, but it should also include consideration of intersectionality: the recognition that it takes an understanding not only of a person’s identity but of their various affinities (e.g. gender, class, race, creed, etc.) in order to grasp the significance and consequences of their practices.

This challenge was met head on by Andrea J. Nightingale in her work on the material production of gender, caste, class, and environment in Nepal. Nightingale explores the national historical context of Nepal, the regional sensitivities of her focus region in Northwestern Nepal, and the ways in which power flows along caste, gender, class, and occupational avenues respectively. In doing so, she has offered a fascinating and nuanced insight into the highly complex social relations in the Mugu District, all the while bolstering her main argument that “symbolic ideas of difference are produced and expressed through embodied interactions that are firmly material”. It is noteworthy, however, the research methodology used for her study was left ambiguous and, moreover, that her analysis was so multivariate that, at times during my reading, it was necessary to actively remind myself that this was first and foremost intended to be a paper in political ecology. The final section (barring the conclusion), however, is its redeeming grace, as it pulls together all the observations and points made thus far and, in a rallying coup that tops off Nightingale’s argument, demonstrates their effects on the ‘neutral’ practice of environmental management. Without this, it could just as easily been an article (albeit of excellent calibre) in anthropology, sociology, or gender studies.

In light of my reaction to Nightingale’s paper, I found resonance in Rebecca Elmhirst’s warning that ‘developments in unsettling understandings of the “human”’ might unwittingly reinstate the ‘“unmarked, disembodied but implicitly masculine subject”’. By this, Elmhirst cautions that an excessive concern with intersectionality might blur the focus on, in this case, gender, to the point where a reader projects his/her understanding – whether voluntarily or subconsciously – once more onto the default subject unit: the male individual male actor. In my opinion, this concern holds true for the broader discipline of political ecology as well. I worry that, in its attempt to add ever more pillars to the foundation, the house might find itself without a roof; no umbrella under which to bind it.

I believe the work of such researchers such as Dianne Rocheleau offer valuable examples on how to add to the field of political ecology without overburdening it. In addition to calling for greater attention to affinity (in addition to identity), she also offers practical guidelines on how to go about achieving this. Through the meticulous explanation of her approach, she introduces new potential research methodologies (e.g. visual research), whilst reiterating the need for best practice using existing methods (combined quantitative and qualitative methods).

Truth be told, I believe it is necessary to hold the authors to the high standards that we have been. Picking holes in their arguments, we learn how to improve our own. However, the field as a whole can only move forward collectively if constructive criticism is coupled with new ways of thinking and doing. Hopefully, our generation of political ecologists will prove to live up to our own expectations.