bryantthe other and political ecology6456745

sjtg_453 34..48

Bringing the other into political ecology:Reflecting on preoccupations in

a research field

Soyeun Kim,1 Godwin Uyi Ojo,2 Rukhe Zehra Zaidi3 and Raymond L. Bryant3

1Department of East Asian Studies, University of Leeds, UK and Re-shaping Development Institute, Seoul,

South Korea2College of Arts and Social Sciences, Igbinedion University, Okada, Nigeria and Environmental Rights

Action/Friends of the Earth, Nigeria3Department of Geography, Kings College London, London, UK

Correspondence: Soyeun Kim (email: [email protected])

For all its vitality political ecology often appears to be a project in which work by Anglo-

Americans in particular, if it is not privileged, certainly predominates. This trend reflects wider

language and intellectual tendencies in human geography and the social sciences that distort the

development of the field by downplaying or obscuring the contributions of many non-Anglo-

Americans and by naturalizing Anglo-American assumptions at the heart of research. The latter in

turn determine what constitutes good work even as there is no single definition of political

ecology. Arguing against this tendency, this paper draws on postcolonial thinking to emphasize the

need to reassess and reorient the field as other political ecologies are feasible and desirable.

Keywords: political ecology, postcolonial, other, Anglo-American assumptions

Introduction

The field of political ecology is one of the multidisciplinary successes of the pastgeneration. With roots in the 1970s it has established itself at the interface of humangeography and anthropology as a critical and radical project endeavouring to assessunequal power relations shaping humanenvironment interactions worldwide.

Success was linked to a particular combination of factors in western academe. Fromthe 1960s, environmental problems were seen as being intertwined with human exist-ence, while critics increasingly emphasized the failure of conventional technicalapproaches to address causation. Those critics drew on structural and poststructuraltheories that did target causation notably in relation to questions of class, gender,discourse, state action, colonialism and NorthSouth inequalities even as studentsdemanded perspectives on uncomfortable truths. Interventions by the likes of Blaikie,Watts, Turner II, Schmink and Wood created space for critical thinking that combinedconcerns of ecology and a broadly defined political economy (Blaikie & Brookfield,1987: 17). A subsequent generation then followed in their wake mainly at Anglo-American universities.1

Political ecology has now come of age as a favourite of university study (Kepe et al.,2008), and with research published in top social science journals and in numeroustextbooks (on the latter see Blaikie, 1985; Peet & Watts, 1996; 2004; Rocheleau et al.,1996; Bryant & Bailey, 1997; Stott & Sullivan, 2000; Forsyth, 2003; Zimmerer & Bassett,2003; Robbins, 2004; 2012; Neumann, 2005; Biersack & Greenberg, 2006; Goodmanet al., 2008; Peet et al., 2011). The gaze of political ecology has not only widened spatiallyand increasingly addressed issues in both the North (McCarthy, 2005; Schroeder et al.,2006) and the South. It has also expanded thematically, covering issues such as air

bs_bs_banner

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9493.2012.00453.x

Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 33 (2012) 3448

2012 The Authors

Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 2012 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore and

Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

pollution and toxic waste as well as traditional ones such as land degradation anddeforestation, while also scrutinizing diverse actors such as states (Peluso, 1992), NGOs(Bryant, 2005), businesses (Bury, 2008), community groups (Escobar, 2008) and inter-national organizations (Goldman, 2005).

And yet despite these developments, the scholarship that tends to predominate is thatof Anglo-American researchers (who are themselves becoming more socially differenti-ated), mirroring thereby a trend in human geography (Minca, 2000; Garcia-Ramon,2003). This tendency what Power (2010: 433) calls the parochiality of a US-UKconfiguration does not just distort the development of the field, both by downplayingor obscuring contributions by many others and by naturalizing Anglo-American assump-tions at the heart of political ecology, but also determines what constitutes good work even allowing for no single definition in political ecology (CAPE, 2004). We thus arguethat it is valuable to reassess and reorient the field as other political ecologies are feasibleand desirable (and part of a wider effort, see Garcia-Ramon, 2003; Tickner & Waever,2009; Chen, 2010; Ntarangwi, 2010).

First, we clarify our use of the term other. Key insights derive from postcolonialism,particularly in the wake of Saids Orientalism (1978) insights that even now requirewider integration in political ecology (Escobar, 1996; Wainwright, 2005; see alsoSidaway, 2000a; Ashcroft et al., 2006; Sharp, 2008). Other generally refers to a longand ambiguous cultural politics steeped in colonialism in which Euro-American sensesof identity are co-constructed with equivalent senses of identity that are imposed onother peoples and regions. This process can be seen in Saids (1978: 5) analysis ofOrient and Occident: two geographical entities [that] support and to an extent reflecteach other. This historical construction, underpinning an earlier extension of Euro-American power and continuing via postwar development (Escobar, 1995), only nowseems to be unravelling in the BRIC era (Sidaway, 2012).

In the evolution of education, most notably through universities, Kenyan writerNgugi wa Thiongo (1995: 439) notes that there was a basic assumption that the Englishtradition and the emergence of the modern west is the central root of our consciousnessand cultural heritage. Africa [thereby] becomes an extension of the west (see alsoMkandawire, 2005). This shaping role persists today, for instance with the privileging ofwestern academe in determining objects of study or even who studies (Bok, 2003), andseen in the movement of students from across the world especially to Anglo-Americansites of learning, in the sanctioning of what counts as important research, and inthe continued pre-eminence of western scholars often employed at Anglo-Americanuniversities (Marginson, 2006).

But such hegemony is being contested. Whether it be the spread of nonwesternresearch (e.g. evinced in the rise of universities from these areas in global leaguetables), or the growth of South-South education exchanges, there is growing evidencethat the Anglo-American university has reached its global high tide (Marginson,2006). It is against this backdrop that we argue for the elaboration of other politicalecologies.2

Bringing the other in

There are two key aspects here. The first brings to the fore authorship facilitating a moredifferentiated gaze while the second relates to the prospect of more elaborate under-standings of political ecology based on alternate perspectives connected to less noticedcontexts. While there is no taken-for-granted link between other scholars and new

Bringing the other into political ecology 35

stories, there is nonetheless the possibility that reorientation might lead to new issues,theories or methodologies being explored.

To advance this agenda is to promote research by other political ecologists underpublishing arrangements in which they have a controlling stake. Few extant collectionsprivilege non-Anglo-American perspectives in English at least in this way (but see Lyeet al., 2003). Instead, Anglo-Americans tend to predominate for example, Blaikie andBrookfield (1987), Peet and Watts (1996; 2004), Stott and Sullivan (2000), Zimmererand Bassett (2003), Biersack and Greenberg (2006), Goodman et al. (2008) and Peetet al. (2011) with work such as Rocheleau et al. (1996) and Moore et al. (2003)arguably partial exceptions. The point is not to gainsay important contributions butto underscore that they are mainly or exclusively Anglo-American achievements. AsBatterbury (2004) observes:

It is regretful when some of the recent synthesis volumes in the field choose to anchor

themselves firmly to North American (or sometimes also to British) authors, implicitly denying

the vital role of scholars in Australasia, Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden,

France, Mexico, Brazil, Spain, Thailand, Kenya, South Africa and many other countries. And

while political ecology is largely a child of the West it is not tied to it exclusively. An

international history of the field has yet to be written.

While we do not write such a history here, we argue that it is time to acknowledgealternative scholarly contributions to political ecology.

Perceiving weakness in the Anglo-American citadel

That Anglo-American assumptions or personnel underpin much work in politicalecology even today is a lamentable situation in a field that has a worldwide agenda: thispaper (like others in the special themed section) was borne out of our own debates onprecisely this issue. The view that gained ground was that political ecology remainsconstrained because it has typically failed to reach out beyond Anglo-Americanacademe in a systematic and equitable manner. As a result, the field has reflected a lesscomplex picture of the scholarly community than it should, which at a time of globalshifts seems to adhere to an outdated vision of which topics are studied and whataudiences are targeted (Minca, 2000; Sidaway, 2000b; Garcia-Ramon, 2003; Poweret al., 2006).

The point is to recognize that perceptions of political ecology inevitably reflect whois doing the perceiving and where these observers are doing the perceiving from. Thuswhen viewed from within the citadel of an Anglo-American dominated political ecology,satisfaction levels often seem to be high for the sorts of reasons noted. Yet whenperceptions are based on what observers who come from outside this citadel see then adifferent picture may emerge one in which a relatively privileged group of insiders areseen to set many parameters.

To understand this situation is to acknowledge the historical trajectory of the field;to recognize how it has always been selective in its choices of how to be radical. Thus,and while notably shaped by neo-Marxism and poststructuralism, it has often failed toengage reflexively enough with postcolonialism not drawing enough practical insightfrom such inquiry (cf. Ntarangwi, 2010). Indeed, and even where addressed, themessage of postcolonialism is one mainly seen to involve the appropriate object of aresearchers gaze (Wainwright, 2005) rather than one that might challenge who does thegazing and why (but see below on Escobar).

36 Soyeun Kim et al.

Postcolonial theory does have its biases and omissions. To some extent, what andwho questions are still influenced by Euro-centred dynamics (Chen, 2010). There issomewhat of a regional bias toward certain former European colonies in Africa, South/Southeast Asia and the Middle East. In contrast, East Asia has been relatively margin-alized (Buckley, 2000; Young, 2005; McLeod, 2007). Meanwhile, leading postcolonialscholars such as Homi Bhabha, Edward Said and Gayatri Spivak have been integral toAnglo-American knowledge production at top US universities hence complexlysubject to the disciplining processes of these centres.

Not surprisingly then fresh calls to decolonize the field are being made. Thus,Taiwanese scholar Kuan-Hsing Chen (2010) promotes an inter-referencing East Asianscholarship that does not look to old imperial centres. Such alternative perspectives arelaudable insofar as they do not create new knowledge hegemonies. What is needed thenis a rethink of what Rajan (1997) calls the international division of intellectual laboursuch that a broadening of academia reflects more representative views of the world(KASER, 2001; Garcia-Ramon, 2003; Alimonda, 2006; Escobar, 2008; Ojo, 2010).

Such thinking is often passed over by many political ecologists in Anglo-America inparticular, as few seek to relate it to the concerns of political ecology with an eye tofundamentally and reflexively transforming the field. Arturo Escobar, a Colombianeducated at the postgraduate level in the US where he still works, stands out as a notableif complicated exception here. A prolific anthropologist, his work to push politicalecology in alternative directions via poststructural analysis (e.g. Escobar, 1995; 1999;2006) has notably involved ethnographic research coproduced with Afro-Colombiancolleagues and is designed to collectively develop knowledge that bridges academe andactivism: a quest for a politics of difference based on relational ontologies (Escobar,2008; 2010).

This work is impressive. Yet it does not directly counter, but rather remains com-plexly embedded (as is Escobar) within a US knowledge production context. To modifyEscobar (2008: xii), there is a scholarship of compromise inevitably at play as a result ofbeing subject to the maddening pace of the neoliberal academy in the United States.Certainly, an alternative scholarly agenda for example, numerous publications writtenor translated into Spanish and other languages, research cooperation with Latin Ameri-can activists and scholars, visiting fellowships around the world can be seen in onesense as an important counterweight to academic disciplining in Anglo-America. Still,such complex career identities only partly offset a scholarship of compromise.

Escobars case highlights in diverse ways and with respect to a diverse group ofscholars several critical issues, just a few of which we note here. First, there are oftenhybrid careers and intellectual qualities to many scholars reflective of historical legaciesas well as unequal power relations that condition them. Yet the other becomes manifestin political ecology differently, amounting to a typology of sorts that we can only brieflyand very partially explore here. One case involves individuals who hail from othercountries but who are trained at and employed in Anglo-American universities wherethey may seek to challenge Anglo-American assumptions through cultivation of adifferentiated gaze. While critique here may be powerful due to insider knowledge, suchintimacy often comes at a price inasmuch as these scholars capacity to challenge isconstrained in complicated ways by their employment situation. Constraints here reflectthe need to be embedded in a self-referential Anglo-American academy, manifestedthrough the quest for career advancement, intellectual debts and obligations, as well ascollegiality and social networks, for example. A second case concerns those who aretrained at Anglo-American institutions but take up employment elsewhere. Here, too,


a differentiated gaze may emerge, perhaps shaped in part by different career and culturalexpectations and experiences than those prevailing in the Anglo-American citadel. Thatgaze can simply be a reflection of living and working in other academic cultures, but itmight also reflect a collision of norms and practices, as an individual reconciles theirtraining and employment experiences. Either way, new ideas or perceptions aboutpolitical ecology might be the result. In comparison, a third case relates to the otherwithin that is, political ecologists born or raised in Anglo-America who are often ofethnic minority heritage. Here, a politics of difference may find expression in adifferentiated gaze that undoubtedly reflects its own personal trajectories and meanings(Nez-Mchiri, 2009). Certainly, comparable constraints to those noted for the first caseare likely to be factor in an individuals career even as there may be countervailingfactors that might aid in the articulation of alternative perspectives (e.g. affirmativeaction discourses and policies, and diaspora membership). A final, fourth case concernspolitical ecologists who are neither trained nor working in Anglo-American academe.Though they might be influenced to a greater or lesser degree by Anglo-Americanscholarship, they may nonetheless cultivate a differentiated gaze via different theo-retical and/or empirical traditions for instance suggestive of pathways that are notreducible to the ones just noted. Research by East Asian and Latin American politicalecologists is illustrative here (see below).

Even such a partial typology points to the rich and differentiated processes at stakehere while inviting further reflection and elaboration (for instance, as to patterns andprocesses of othering that are completely unconnected to Anglo-American academe).It has certainly helped all of us involved in this special section to reflect on our ownintellectual journeys. The younger scholars amongst us have diverse national origins(Chile, South Africa, Nigeria, South Korea, Pakistan), a common interest in politicalecology and share a common migration for doctoral studies through the Anglo-American university the Department of Geography at Kings College London, wherethe idea for a project on other political ecologies germinated through conversationsthat included one of our Anglo-American supervisors, Raymond Bryant. Today, two ofus have returned home, one has joint affiliation with a UK and home institution, andtwo remain at Kings College London, underscoring just some of the complex (anddynamic) positioning scarcely noted in the literature. At the same time, our ownproject has shown that power relations are invariably at play that must be constantlynegotiated (e.g. supervisor/supervised, junior/senior, non/Anglo-American, male/female). Such dynamics are perhaps inevitable, but never immutable, we havelearned.

Second, and partly as a result of such complex scholarly positioning, a process thatemphasizes the contributions of other political ecologists does not imply that suchscholars speak in unison, as heterogeneous work in Latin American political ecologyillustrates (e.g. Baquedano, 2002; Alimonda, 2006; Palacio Casteeda, 2010). Nor needsuch scholars proffer perspectives dramatically different from Anglo-American coun-terparts (who themselves reflect diverse concerns and perspectives), as research by thelikes of Patnaik (2006), Mullins (2007), or Rasul (2007) demonstrate. Indeed, anassumption that other political ecologists will automatically produce work that is differ-ent from Anglo-American counterparts manifests new forms of censorship anddiscrimination.

Third, language barriers can hinder the intelligibility of contributions from somepolitical ecologists seeking to register a difference on the international stage of theEnglish-speaking world (Ives, 2010), while recognizing that not all scholars solicit such


exposure (Fall & Rosire, 2008). Here, de facto exclusion goes hand in hand with thechallenges (and costs) of translations barriers perhaps most evident in the context ofan East Asian political ecology largely unknown in Anglo-America (e.g. Lee 2003;Moon, 2006a; Akimichi & Ichikawa, 2008; Ichikawa et al., 2010). True, the Anglo-American-based Journal of Political Ecology accepts papers in Spanish and French, but sofar at least non-English papers have been relatively rare. Conversely, some work fromAnglo-American academe is translated into other languages, thereby underscoring whatresearch is perceived to be important (that Escobar is frequently translated is intriguingand partly reflects his complex career identities noted above). Yet for many non-Anglo-American political ecologists, this state of affairs is hardly satisfactory: as Garcia-Ramon(2003: 2) observes, language not only reflects the external world, it also embodies it. Itis much more than a communicative tool for exchanging ideas, it also represents a wayof thinking and a framework for expressing our own experiences and realities. Thus,the rise of English-language journals within an increasingly global university andresearch system (in which much high impact work is published) is scarcely interna-tional in the sense of encouraging an intellectually or linguistically level playing field onwhich scholars from diverse cultures and language groups might interact (Gutierrez &Lpez-Nieva, 2001; Paasi, 2005).

Engaging with political ecology suffused with such power relations can thus be adifficult process. Yet why has Anglo-American political ecology so far been relativelyimmune to postcolonial critiques, at least in English? Many other fields shaped byunequal power relations such as those linked to area studies have witnessed relativelygreater reorientation and reassessment (Miyoshi & Harootunian, 2002; Chen, 2010). Twopossible reasons spring to mind. First, there is the timing of political ecologys relativelyrecent ascendancy in western academe (in the 1980s) compared with that of betterestablished area studies in the era of decolonization (from the 1950s). Second, the radicalbases of political ecology, premised as it was on structural and poststructural ideas criticalof mainstream thinking, might have inoculated the field from searching scrutiny.

What are the key features of a political ecology often dominated by Anglo-Americanassumptions and personnel? First, as already noted, the very definition of the field hasbeen shaped by a succession of Anglo-Americans: whether in the form of landmarkarticles or textbooks, these writers have moulded how the field has widely come to beunderstood. This influence encompasses such things as appropriate theoretical, meth-odological or empirical choices, professional standards in research and prestigiouspublication outlets. Second, political ecology has taken shape notably in the context ofthe annual meetings of the American and (to a lesser extent) British geography andanthropology associations. For instance, the sessions of the Cultural and PoliticalEcology Speciality Group (CAPE) within the Association of American Geographers,which have produced new ways of seeing political ecology (mostly) in a context ofAnglo-American knowledge production and expectations. The creation and reproduc-tion of the field here has thus simultaneously been about the often subtle disciplining ofthose who call themselves political ecologists. Third, most key and so-called interna-tional academic journals and publishing houses are located in the US or UK, providingsome in-built advantage for well-connected writers in those countries. It is not surpris-ing, therefore, that academic gatekeepers are still disproportionately resident in Anglo-America as a cursory scan of editorial or international advisory boards would reveal.Finally, that the international language of so much existing scholarship is English clearlyfavours native English speakers together with others typically educated/working inAnglo-American academe (e.g. Mukherji, 2006; Njeru, 2006; Hung, 2007; Escobar,


2008), underscoring thereby how ambiguity and hybridity can shape the role of theother in the field. As a result, there is a group of well-connected, mutually supportiveAnglo-American based scholars with their hands on the levers of knowledge productionin much of political ecology.

Such international hegemony has certainly not prevented other scholars from teach-ing and researching political ecology beyond the Anglo-American citadel. Indeed, inselected contexts such as France (see below) and Latin America (e.g. Bedoya & Mar-tinez, 1999; Alimonda, 2002; 2011; Baquedano, 2002; Leff, 2006; Gudynas, 2010),robustly autonomous scholarly traditions are in place. Yet all too frequently intellectualpursuits have been conducted in scholarly settings in which there is not a critical massof political ecologists, albeit a situation that might be changing in selected regions andcountries.3 To overcome possible isolation, some scholars may thus feel obliged to attendAnglo-American conferences to remain connected to the latest trends and/or inviteprominent Anglo-American political ecologists to their universities (Harootunian &Miyoshi, 2002). For their research to receive an international audience, they typicallymust publish in English, thereby making them regularly beholden to Anglo-Americangatekeepers (perhaps less so for those writing in Spanish journals such as Ecologa Polticathat reach out to an international readership). On the margin of this English-languagepolitical ecology community, it is not surprising that their impact factor tends to belower than big name Anglo-American counterparts.

It is France that has the best developed alternative political ecology community,one that is deeply embedded in the concerns of that country and its green politics, viawriter-practitioners such as Andr Gorz (1987) and Alain Lipietz (Shull, 1999), whichrevolve around possible trajectories and components of life after capitalism (Chartier& Delage, 2010) in a manner not much pursued in Anglo-American academe (Whi-teside, 2002; Walker 2006; Seijo, 2011). Given these different historical paths, therehas been relatively little crossover between French and Anglo-American politicalecology, although a series of theme issues of cologie & Politique suggest some overlap(e.g. Blanc et al., 2011; Rodary, 2011), while affinities to some Spanish scholarship canbe discerned (e.g. Martnez-Alier, 2002; Martnez-Alier et al., 2010). The role ofEnglish as an international language, though, has undoubtedly limited the influenceof French political ecology when compared with its Anglo-American counterpart, forexample across much of Europe where the latter community is often a referent (e.g.Graner, 1997; Krings, 1999; Gssling, 2003; Bohl & Fnfgeld, 2007; Otero et al., 2009;Paniagua et al., 2012).

Other storytellers, stories and audiences

What might an alternative political ecology project based on new relations and normsamong scholars look like? These being early days (in the English-speaking world) forsuch an ambitious endeavour, this paper can only scratch at the surface of the kindsof issues and thinking that might emerge to underlie such a project. First, there isneed for antihegemonic critique. Research can call attention to the complex Anglo-American assumptions and practices that underlie much of political ecology today even as such work explores why this state of affairs is inappropriate in relation to anarray of other contributions or perspectives. Such critique might pinpoint distortionsin the development of the field for reasons already noted.4 In aggregate, these reflectpower relations that many political ecologists in Anglo-American academe are happyto talk about with regard to the objects of their research, but usually less so when it


relates to practices in their own scholarly community (let alone how they see changehere occurring).

Second, research can fruitfully proffer alternative embodiments of political ecology as ameans by which to sketch alternative visions. This embodiment is clearly literal in thatnon-Anglo-Americans define and produce their own work (a selection of which arecited in this paper). This is not a simple matter as much postcolonial work on the trickytask of giving voice to difference more generally notes (e.g. Spivak, 1995). Ironically, assuggested above, while these insights are not unknown among Anglo-American politi-cal ecologists, they have not usually been assimilated to the everyday practices of theresearch field that they dominate. Put differently, what would putting the last first looklike within a reoriented political ecology scholarly community? Indeed, how is the lasteven to be defined given the many complexities that surround the other in politicalecology?

Third, political ecology research could feature in new publishing outlets such aselectronic blogs, journals, and the like, as well as smaller and lesser known publishersof books and journals often overlooked by many Anglo-American political ecologists (inSoutheast or East Asia, for example, see Seki Y, 2001; Odani, 2009; Seki K, 2009),especially when it comes to their best work. Once again, this is not a trivial matterbecause the status quo reflects a clear privileging of international (but typically UK/US-based) outlets that serve particular distinction-making concerns. Yet this distortion maycast into the shadow diverse publishers that may thereby be deprived of quality researchsent first to usually better resourced Anglo-American counterparts, perhaps only laterrepublished with them, seemingly unless a concerted countervailing effort is madesuch as the Latin American Council of Social Sciences (CLASCO) political ecology seriesedited by Hctor Alimonda (2002; 2006; 2011).

Fourth, there is a need to cater to and interest new audiences. It is hardly surprisingthat much research in Anglo-American academe is often inaccessible and unaffordablefor many would-be readers in many countries that various political ecologists do writeabout, notably but not exclusively in the South. Of course there can be a lack ofconnection or different expectations between what some Anglo-American politicalecologists write about and what can be usefully deployed in the settings analyzed. Thepoint is not that all scholarship need have a clear and immediate practical local benefitbut that there needs to be more regular and systematic connections between researchoutputs and contexts if only because of the more diverse composition of the researchcommunity involved as well as perhaps different expectations about what politicalecology is for (e.g. Alimonda, 2006; Moon, 2006a; Acosta, 2009; Gudynas, 2010;Romanova, 2010). In this regard, Escobars (e.g. 2008; 2010) work on territory, poli-tics, and sustainability points in one fruitful direction via the coproduction of knowl-edge with locally-based writer-activists (in Nigeria, see Ojo & Oluwafemi, 2004; Ojo,2012).

Finally, if perhaps more ambiguously, there is the possibility of new stories as otherpolitical ecologists assume a more prominent role than before. While this cannot beassumed, narratives from other places may indeed lead in different directions as what isto be studied and how studies occur are shaped by increasingly varied cultural andintellectual traditions (Contreras, 1998; Alimonda, 2006). Topics may include nonwest-ern social constructions of the other that, for example, link Japan and China with theirAsian neighbours (Suzuki, 2007; Kim, 2012). Whatever the outcome, the need for otherpolitical ecologies as noted earlier does not simply revolve around the need for newstories (Mullins, 2004; Delang, 2005; Obi, 2005) as much as implicate a range of issues


which in differing ways reflect the construction of a particular sort of political ecologybased on distinctive cultural practices (driven in the UK, for example, by researchassessment exercises, see Castree, 2006) as well as complex power relations concerningwho is on the inside and who is on the outside of the Anglo-American citadel.

In this regard, perhaps the key contribution of other political ecologies would be toprovincialize the hitherto universal knowledge production system that seems to be atthe core of the Anglo-American project (Robinson, 2003) to render thereby unnaturalany sweeping intellectual reach and claims, and to ensure that, as with all other culturalnarratives and scholarly traditions, political ecology sits in place (Escobar, 2001; Leff,2006).

Conclusion

Our aim has been to identify selected key issues surrounding knowledge production,Anglo-American predominance, and multifaceted constructions of the other in politi-cal ecology with an eye to reassessment and reorientation in the field. This endeavouris not about decrying the intellectual quality of prior or current work but whetherresearch needs to account for the other much more, even as it needs to be betterattuned to the multifaceted nature of that other in political ecology. We suggested thatone key element is to acknowledge and hear voices originating from beyond theAnglo-American citadel (while being mindful too of sometimes complex career tra-jectories).

Who those voices are and how such writing will unfold are open questions. Whilethe contours of this venture thus remain unclear, what is likely is that it will be markedby great heterogeneity of scholarly traditions, political expectations, and cultural per-spectives. These intellectual traditions and demands will be shaped (in subtle and not sosubtle ways) by multifaceted constructions of the other (only some of which arefeatured in this paper). Thus, as individual political ecologists pursue their own careerpaths, they may bump up against pre-existing but shifting norms and expectationsframed in an Anglo-American idiom, which itself confronts new challenges linked tointernal (e.g. multicultural tendencies) and external (notably geopolitical changes in theBRIC era) forces that are connected in complicated ways.

Many political ecologists are still liable to be labelled and categorized at interna-tional conferences and in international English-language publication systems via suchthings as foreign status, articulation in academic English, or culturally-specificdemands for what constitutes research rigour and excellence, as well as implicitexpectations that they will conduct research on their home country or region, ratherthan on Anglo-America in a reversed gaze (Ntarangwi, 2010; see also Agarwal &Narain, 1991).

None of this is likely to deter committed scholars from carving their own spaces inpolitical ecology and in the process helping to reshape the field. We reiterate that sucha process does not necessarily entail new research agendas, theories or methodologiesbased on the potentially suffocating expectation of difference, but something muchmore important and elemental: to present research by other political ecologists that isinspired by their own interests. Those interests may lead to conducting that research athome or elsewhere; on topics or themes already assessed by Anglo-American politicalecologists or new ones; and using homegrown or differently inspired theories to frameempirical work. In short, the process would be propelled by a differentiated gaze for apolitical ecology sorely in need of further differentiation itself.


Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers, as well as Shanti Nair, Melissa Moreano,

Francisco Molina Camacho and the SJTG editorial board for their very helpful comments.

Endnotes

1 In this paper Anglo-America refers to the US, UK, Ireland, (English-speaking) Canada, Aus-

tralia and New Zealand, with Anglo-American denoting individuals who are residents/citizens

of these places. In contrast, non-Anglo-American countries refers to the rest of the world.

Clearly some individuals crisscross such boundaries for education or employment reasons

pointing to contingency in such designations.

2 Two clarifications of our use of other are in order here. First, and while other clearly refers

to people from or resident in countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East (as

per postcolonial theory), we extend its remit, notably to also encompass Europe (excluding

the UK/Ireland). We do so because, when seen from the specific vantage-point of Anglo-

American political ecology, the positionality of (non-UK/Ireland) European scholars bears

some resemblance to that of many researchers from the South, especially when poorer

central and eastern European countries are included. Hence, for example, language issues as

well as different academic cultures and expectations often exist (even in western Europe)

that may serve to render marginal some European scholars in Anglo-American political

ecology. Second, we also use other to denote those individuals born or raised in Anglo-

America of ethnic minority heritage (the other within). As such, we deploy other in the

sense of both language/geography (e.g. nonanglophone, non-Anglo-America resident) and

perceived ethnicity (e.g. ethnic minority Anglo-Americans and most residents of the South).

Such a multifaceted understanding of the other enables us to acknowledge that complex

dynamics shape personal and career identities in political ecology, as evinced by our partial

typology of the other set out below.

3 Three regional scholarly communities in which critical mass can be observed are noted here by

way of example. Thus, it can be seen in the case of Latin America where a common language

(Spanish) is helping to surmount possible isolation of scholars in their individual countries via

core work (e.g. Leff & Boeira, 2002; Alimonda, 2006) and scholars such as Alimonda, Escobar,

Leff and Martnez-Alier. East Asia is witnessing rapid growth with political ecology translated

as zhngzh-shengti-xu in Chinese, jeong-chi-seng-te-hak in Korean, and seiji-(teki)-seitai-gaku or

poritikaru-eh-koroj in Japanese. In Japan, there is a rural and developing country focus (e.g.

Ikeya, 2006; Shimada, 1998; 1999; 2007; Sato, 2002; 2008) with scholars usually based in

geography or anthropology. The growing field in South Korea (e.g. KASER, 2001; Moon,

2006a; Eom, 2008) mostly involves Korea-oriented progressive researcher-activists (Choi,

2001; Kwon, 2001; Lee, 2001; 2003; Moon, 2001; 2006b; Cho, 2006). Soonhong Moon is a

noteworthy pioneer here. Some Anglo-American texts are translated for instance, Robbins

(2004) was published in Korean in 2009. In South Asia, with its longstanding historical

connections to the English-speaking world, an array of scholars and commentators including

Ramachandra Guha, Madhav Gadgil, Anil Agarwal, Sunita Narain, Vandana Siva and

Arundhati Roy have spoken to a broadly political ecology agenda, with Guha (1989; Guha &

Martnez-Alier, 1997) being the most closely associated with that label.

4 This process may be assisted by wider changes in an increasingly global university market with

the growing wealth and power of non-Anglo-American institutions. At the same time, such

anti-hegemonic critique needs to account for complexities surrounding the role of the other in

political ecology that we could only hint at above. We noted for instance the case of the other

within which might lead to more complex renderings of political ecology in Anglo-America.

Critique is further complicated by questions of class and gender that feature both inside and outside

Anglo-American political ecology but are scarcely examined. For example, what might a

Gramscian sensibility look like if directed not so much at the core concerns within political


ecology (Ekers et al., 2009: 290; emphasis added) as at the membership of that scholarly

community itself?

References

Acosta A (2009) La maldicin de la abundancia [The misfortune of plenty]. CEP, Swissaid and

Abya-Yala, Quito.

Agarwal A, Narain S (1991) Global Warming in an Unequal World. Centre for Science and Environ-

ment, New Delhi.

Akimichi T, Ichikawa M (eds) (2008) Tonan-ajia-no-morini naniga okotte-irunoka [What is happening

in the forests of Southeast Asia]. Jinbun Shoin, Tokyo.

Alimonda H (ed) (2002) Ecologa poltica: naturaleza, sociedad y utopa [Political ecology: nature,

society and utopia]. Latin American Council of Social Science (CLACSO), Buenos Aires.

Alimonda H (ed) (2006) Los tormentos de la materia: aportes para una ecologa poltica latinoamericana

[The torments of matter: contributions towards a Latin American political ecology]. CLACSO,

Buenos Aires.

Alimonda H (ed) (2011) La naturaleza colonizada: ecologa poltica y minera en Amrica Latina [Colo-

nized nature: political ecology and mining in Latin America]. CLACSO, Buenos Aires.

Ashcroft B, Griffiths G, Tiffin H (eds) (2006) Post-colonial Studies Reader, 2nd edition, Routledge,

London.

Baquedano M (2002) La ecologa poltica en Amrica Latina [Political ecology in Latin America].

Il 2 (2), 1740.Batterbury S (2004) Panelist remarks. Cultural and political ecology at the AAG century: applica-

tion and impact in the world. Available at http://www2.stetson.edu/cape/Features/

capecentury/batterbury.htm (accessed 24 November 2011).

Bedoya E, Martinez S (1999) La ecologa poltica y la critica al desarrollo [Political ecology and the

critique of development]. Debate Agrario 2930, 22346.Biersack A, Greenberg J (eds) (2006) Reimagining Political Ecology. Duke University Press, Durham,

NC.

Blaikie P (1985) Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries. Longman, London.

Blaikie P, Brookfield H (eds) (1987) Land Degradation and Society. Methuen, London.

Blanc N, Le Roy A, Lewis N (eds) (2011) Les cologies politiques aujourdhui (2): Amrique du Nord

[Political ecology today (2): North America]. Special issue of cologie & Politique 41, 15121.Bohl H, Fnfgeld H (2007) Political ecology of violence in eastern Sri Lanka. Development & Change

38, 66587.Bok D (2003) Universities in the Marketplace. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Bryant RL (2005) Nongovernmental Organizations in Environmental Struggles. Yale University Press,

New Haven.

Bryant RL, Bailey S (1997) Third World Political Ecology. Routledge, London.

Buckley S (2000) Japan and East Asia. In Schwarz H, Ray S (eds) Companion to Postcolonial Studies,

31932. Blackwell, Oxford.

Bury J (2008) Transnational corporations and livelihood transformations in the Peruvian Andes: an

actor-oriented political ecology. Human Organisation 67, 30721.Castree N (2006) Research assessment and the production of geographical knowledge. Progress in

Human Geography 30, 74782.Chartier D, Delage J-P (eds) (2010) Les cologies politiques aujourdhui (1): France. [Political

ecology today (1): France]. Special issue of cologie & Politique 40, 15113.Chen K-H (2010) Asia as Method. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.

Cho M (2006) Kaebal jeongchi wa noksek jinbo [Developmental politics and green progressives].

Hwangyung gwa Sengmyung, Seoul.

Choi B (2001) Shim-tseung-sengtehak gwa sengmul-pyeongdeung-mit ja-ah-sil-hyeon-uroseo yi

hwangeyong-jeong-yi [Environmental justice as deep ecology, ecological equity, and self

realization]. Gonggan gwa Hwangyeong 16, 3668.


Contreras AP (1998) Imagining a Filipino political ecology: a critical analysis of the prospects for

political science in environmental studies in the Philippines. Journal of Environmental Science and

Management 1, 1115.Cultural and Political Ecology Speciality Group (CAPE) (2004) Cultural and political ecology at the

AAG century mark. Available at http://www2.stetson.edu/cape/Features/capecentury/

index.htm (accessed 24 November 2011).

Delang CO (2005) Political ecology of deforestation in Thailand. Geography 90, 22537.Ekers M, Loftus A, Mann G (2009) Gramsci lives! Geoforum 40, 28791.Eom E (2008) Ban-gwansanjiyok-wundong-gwa dajungjeok-skeyil-jeok-yondae [Anti-

community mining community and multi-scalar solidarity: political ecology of RapuRapu

project in the Philippines]. Space and Society 30, 177212.Escobar A (1995) Encountering Development. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Escobar A (1996) Constructing nature: elements for a post-structural political ecology. In Peet R,

Watts M (eds), Liberation Ecologies, 4668. Routledge, London.

Escobar A (1999) After nature: steps to an anti-essentialist political ecology. Current Anthropology

40, 130.Escobar A (2001) Culture sits in places: reflections on globalism and subaltern strategies of

localization. Political Geography 20, 13974.Escobar A (2006) Difference and conflict in the struggle over natural resources: a political ecology

framework. Development 49 (3), 613.Escobar A (2008) Territories of Difference. Duke University Press, Durham.

Escobar A (2010) Postconstructivist political ecologies. In Redclift MR, Woodgate G (eds) Interna-

tional Handbook of Environmental Sociology, 2nd edition, 91105. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Fall J, Rosire S (2008) On the limits of dialogue between francophone and anglophone political

geography. Political Geography 27, 71316.Forsyth T (2003) Critical Political Ecology. Routledge, London.

Garcia-Ramon MD (2003) Globalization and international geography: the questions of languages

and scholarly traditions. Progress in Human Geography 27, 15.Goldman M (2005) Imperial Nature. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Goodman MK, Boykoff MT, Evered KT (eds) (2008) Contentious Geographies. Ashgate, Aldershot.

Gorz A (1987) Ecology as Politics. Pluto, London.

Gssling S (ed) (2003) Tourism and Development in Tropical Islands. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Graner E (1997) Political Ecology of Community Forestry in Nepal. Verlag fr Entwicklungsforschung,

Freiburg.

Gudynas E (2010) La ecologa poltica del progresismo sudamericano: los lmites del progreso y la

renovacin verde de la izquierda [The political ecology of South American progressivism: the

limits of progress and the green renewal of the left]. Sin Permiso 8, 14767.Guha R (1989) Unquiet Woods. Oxford University Press, Delhi.

Guha R, Martnez-Alier J (1997) Varieties of Environmentalism: Essays North and South. Earthscan,

London.

Gutierrez J, Lpez-Nieva P (2001) Are international journals of human geography really interna-

tional? Progress in Human Geography 25, 5369.Harootunian HD, Miyoshi M (2002) Introduction: the afterlife of area studies. In Miyoshi M,

Harootunian HD (eds) Learning places, 118. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.

Hung H-F (2007) Changes and continuities in the political ecology of popular protest: mid-Qing

China and contemporary resistance. China Information 21, 299329.Ichikawa M, Ubukata F, Naito D (2010) Nettai-ajiano-hitobitoto shinrin-kanri-seido [People and forest

management in tropical Asia]. Jinbunshoin, Tokyo.

Ikeya K (2006) Botsuwanano-shizenhogoku-to karahari-senjuminwo-meguru seijiseitaigaku

[Political ecology of Botswanas nature reserve and Kalahari indigenous people]. African Studies

69, 10112.Ives P (2010) Cosmopolitanism and global English: language politics in globalization debates.

Political Studies 58, 51635.


Kepe T, Bissonnette, J-F, Roberts DJ (2008) Why are students attracted to political ecology?

Environment and Planning A 40, 253943.Kim S (2012) Contextualizing other political ecologies: Japans environmental aid to the Philip-

pines. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 33 (1), 10722.Korea Association of Space and Environment Research (KASER) (2001) Jeongchi sengtaehak

uro-ui chodae [Invitation to political ecology]. Gonggan gwa Hwangyeong 16, 10126.Krings T (1999) Editorial. Zeitschrift fr Wirtschaftsgeographie 43, 12930.Kwon H (2001) Minjok-juyi-yi jeong-chi-seng-tehak [Political ecology of nationalism]. Gonggan

gwa Hwangyeong 16, 93108.Lee S (2001) Nangman-jeok-in jeong-chi-seng-tehak sanchek [Romantic stroll with political

ecology]. Gonggan gwa Hwangyeong 16, 1035.Lee S (2003) Sesang-ul umjiginun mul: mul-yi jeong-chiwa jeong-chi-seng-tehak [Water moves the

world: politics and political ecology of water]. Imagine, Seoul.

Leff E (2006) La ecologa poltica en Amrica Latina: un campo en construccin [Political ecology

in Latin America: a field under construction]. In Alimonda H (ed), Los Tormentos de la materia:

aportes para una ecologa poltica latinoamericana [The torments of matter: contributions towards

a Latin American political ecology], 2140. CLACSO, Buenos Aires.

Leff E, Boeira SL (2002) Saber ambiental [Environmental knowledge]. Ambiente & Sociedade 5 (10),14346.

Lye TP, de Jong W, Abe K (eds) (2003) Political Ecology of Forests in Southeast Asia. Kyoto University

Press, Kyoto.

Marginson S (2006) The Anglo-American university at its global high tide. Minerva 44,6587.

Martnez-Alier J (2002) Environmentalism of the Poor. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Martnez-Alier J, Pascual U, Vivien F-D, Zaccai E (2010) Sustainable de-growth: mapping the

context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm. Ecological Economics 69,174147.

McCarthy J (2005) First World political ecology: directions and challenges. Environment and Plan-

ning A, 37, 9538.McLeod J (ed) (2007) Routledge Companion to Postcolonial Studies. Routledge, London.

Minca C (2000) Venetian geographical praxis. Environment and Planning D, 18, 28589.Miyoshi M, Harootunian HD (eds) (2002) Learning places. Duke University Press, Durham.

Mkandawire T (ed) (2005) African Intellectuals: Rethinking Politics, Language, Gender and Development.

CODESRIA, Dakar.

Moon S (2001) Seng-tae-minjujuyi damron-ne sente-yeoseong-jeok jeongchi-non-yi-yi jihyeong-

gurigi [Mapping eco-feminist political debates within ecological democracy discourse]. Gonggan

gwa Hwangyeong 16, 6992.Moon S (2006a) Jeong-chi-seng-tehak gwa nok-sek-gukka [Political ecology and the green state].

Arche, Seoul.

Moon S (ed) (2006b) Kaebal-gukkawa noksek-seong-tsal [Developmental state and green reflexive-

ness]. Arche, Seoul.

Moore DS, Kosek J, Pandian A (eds) (2003) Race, Nature and the Politics of Difference. Duke University

Press, Durham, NC.

Mukherji A (2006) Political ecology of groundwater: the contrasting case of water abundant

West Bengal and water scarce Gujarat, India. Hydrogeology Journal 14, 392406.Mullins MT (2004) The political ecology of Indonesia: a case study of a fishing village in Sumatra.

Local Environment 9, 16375.Mullins MT (2007) Thai state and its agencies in coastal resources management: political ecology

of fisheries management in southern Thailand. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 28,34861.

Neumann RP (2005) Making Political Ecology. Hodder Arnold, London.

Njeru J (2006) The urban political ecology of plastic bag waste problem in Nairobi, Kenya. Geoforum

37, 104658.


Nez-Mchiri GG (2009) The political ecology of the colonias on the US-Mexico border: human-

environmental challenges and community responses in southern New Mexico. Southern Rural

Sociology 24, 6791.Ntarangwi M (2010) Reversed Gaze. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Obi CI (2005) Environmental Movements in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Political Ecology of Power and Conflict.

UNRISD, Geneva.

Odani S (2009) Shougyou-teki-shinrinbassai-ni-okeru poritikaru-eh-koroji [Political ecology of

commercial logging: empirical study in Western Province, Papua New Guinea]. Chiba University

Journal of Humanities 38, 121.Ojo GU (ed) (2010) Envisioning a Post-Petroleum Nigeria. Kraft, Ibadan.

Ojo GU (2012) Economic diversification and second-tier political conflict: Assessing bitumen

political ecologies in southwest Nigeria. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 33 (1), 4962.Ojo GU, Oluwafemi A (eds) (2004) Before the Earth Bleeds Again. Kraft, Ibadan.

Otero I, Kallis G, Aguilar R, Ruiz V (2009) Water scarcity, social power and the production of an

elite suburb: the political ecology of water in Matadepera, Catalonia. Working Papers on

Environmental Sciences, ICTA, Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona.

Paasi A (2005) Globalisation, academic capitalism, and the uneven geographies of international

journal publishing spaces. Environment and Planning A 37, 76989.Palacio Casteeda GA (ed) (2010) Ecologa poltica de la Amazona [Political ecology of Amazo-

nia].Universidad Nacional, Ecofondo (Colombia) and ILSA, Bogot.

Paniagua A, Bryant R, Kizos T (eds) (2012) The Political Ecology of Depopulation. CEDDAR, Zaragoza.

Patnaik R (2006) Out of Africa: an ecological critique of colonialism and nationhood. Studies of

Tribes and Tribals 4, 415.Peet R, Watts M (eds) (1996) Liberation Ecologies. Routledge, London.

Peet R, Watts M (eds) (2004) Liberation Ecologies, 2nd edition. Routledge, London.

Peet R, Robbins P, Watts M (eds) (2011) Global Political Ecology. Routledge, London.

Peluso NL (1992) Rich Forests, Poor People. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Power M (2010) Geopolitics and development: an introduction. Geopolitics 15, 43340.Power M, Mohan G, Mercer C (eds) (2006) Postcolonial geographies of development. Special issue

of Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 27 (3), 231341.Rajan RS (1997) The Third World academic in Other places: or, the postcolonial intellectual

revisited. Critical Inquiry 23, 596616.Rasul G (2007) Political ecology of the degradation of forest commons in the Chittagong Hill Tracts

of Bangladesh. Environmental Conservation 34, 15363.Robbins P (2004) Political Ecology. Blackwell, Oxford.

Robbins P (2012) Political Ecology, 2nd edition. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.

Robinson J (2003) Postcolonialising geography: tactics and pitfalls. Singapore Journal of Tropical

Geography 24 (3), 27389.Rocheleau D, Thomas-Slayter B, Wangari E (eds) (1996) Feminist Political Ecology. Routledge,

London.

Rodary E (ed) (2011) Les cologies politiques aujourdhui (3): Afrique [Political ecology today (3):

Africa]. Special issue of cologie & Politique 42, 1992.Romanova T (2010) What is political ecology? Russia in Global Affairs 4 (OctoberDecember).

Available at http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/number/What-Is-Political-Ecology-15084 (last accessed

February 2012).

Said EW (1978) Orientalism. Vintage, New York.

Sato J (2002) Kisho-shigen no poritkkusu: Tai-nosonni miru kaihatsu to kankyono hazama [Politics of

resource scarcity: spaces in-between development and environment in Thai villages]. Univer-

sity of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.

Sato J (2008) Shingewo mirume genbakarano bunpairon [Seeing resources: debating distribution

from the field]. Toshinto, Tokyo.

Schroeder RA, St Martin K, Albert KE (2006) Political ecology in North America: discovering the

Third World within? Geoforum 37, 1638.


Seijo F (2011) Lexception amricaine, 2e partie: ou pourquoi les tats-Unis nont-ils pas de parti

vert important? [The American exception (Part 2): Or why does the US not have a significant

green party?] cologie & Politique 41, 3948.Seki K (2009) Green neoliberalism, ecogovernmentality, and emergent community: a case of

coastal resource management in Palawan, the Philippines. Philippine Studies 57, 54378.Seki Y (2001) The political ecology of the Philippine reforestation program: ODA, government and

local people. Philippine Political Science Journal 22 (45), 7996.Sharp J (2008) Geographies of Postcolonialism. Sage, Oxford.

Shimada S (1998) Kankyo-chirigaku no atarash chihe: poritikaru-ecoroj no kanose wo megutte

[New frontiers of environmental geography: on the possibilities of political ecology]. Chirika-

gaku 53, 6869.Shimada S (1999) Atarash afurika noson-kenkyu no kanose wo motomete: poritikaru-ecoroj-ron

tono kosakara [Seeking a new African agrarian studies from intersection with political

ecology]. In Ikeda S (ed), Revisiting the Image of African Agrarian Community, 20554. Institute of

Developing Economies, Tokyo.

Shimada S (2007) Afurika kanosewo ikiru nomin: kankyo-kokka-mura no hikaku-setai-kennkyu [African

peasants living with possibilities: comparative study of environment-state-village]. Kyoto Uni-

versity Press, Kyoto.

Shull T (1999) Redefining Red and Green. SUNY Press, Albany.

Sidaway JD (2000a) Postcolonial geographies: an exploratory essay. Progress in Human Geography

24, 57394.Sidaway JD (2000b) Recontextualizing positionality: geographical research and academic fields of

power. Antipode 32, 26070.Sidaway JD (2012) Geographies of development: new maps, new visions? Professional Geographer 64

(1), 4962.Spivak GC (1995) Can the subaltern speak? In Ashcroft B, Griffiths G, Tiffin H (eds) Postcolonial-

Studies Reader, 2428. Routledge, London.

Stott P, Sullivan S (eds) (2000) Political Ecology. Arnold, London.

Suzuki S (2007) The importance of othering in Chinas national identity: Sino-Japanese relations

as a stage of identity conflicts. The Pacific Review 20, 2347.Thiongo Ngugi wa (1995) On the abolition of the English department. In Ashcroft B, Griffiths G,

Tiffin H (eds), Postcolonial Studies Reader, 43842. Routledge, London.

Tickner AB, Waever O (eds) (2009) International Relations Scholarship Around the World. Routledge,

New York.

Walker PA (2006) Political ecology: where is the policy? Progress in Human Geography 30, 38295.Wainwright J (2005) The geographies of political ecology: after Edward Said. Environment and

Planning A 37, 103343.Whiteside KH (2002) Divided Natures. MIT Press, Cambridge.

Young RJC (2005) Preface to Japanese edition. In Masayoshi T (transl.) Postcolonialism: A Very Short

Introduction, vvii. Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo.

Zimmerer K, Bassett T (eds) (2003) Political Ecology. Guilford, New York.


bryantthe other and political ecology6456745

Documents