CfP POLLEN20 – From the Anthropocene to the ‘Plantationocene’: Describing and defying plantation ecologies, replenishing multi-species worlds

POLLEN20: Contested Natures: Power, Possibility, Prefiguration
Brighton, U.K.
June 24-26, 2020

Session organizers

Session organizers: Vijay Kolinjivadi (University of Antwerp), Jean-François Bissonnette (Université  Laval), Catherine Windey (University of Antwerp), Rut Elliot Blomqvist (University of Gothenburg), Gert Van Hecken (University of Antwerp)

Please send abstracts of no more than 300 words to Vijay Kolinjivadi vijay.kolinjivadi@mail.mcgill.ca   no later than  15 November 2019. Feel free to contact us should you have any questions or ideas about this session. If accepted to this paper session, applicants will still need to register through the POLLEN website.

Session description

Over the last decade, the notion of the Anthropocene has come under fierce critique among social scientists, indigenous scholars, and political geographers alike for its unproblematic  attribution of a particular mode of physical transformation to all of humanity (Malm & Hornborg, 2014; Haraway, 2015; Todd, 2015; Ellis et al., 2016; Moore, 2016; Castree, 2017; Pulido, 2018; Bonneuil & Fressoz, 2013). In particular, this has meant disentangling “humanity” from Euro-centric imperialism, modernization and capitalism, and its violent modus operandi of dispossession of indigenous, black and brown bodies and land. While some have preferred to more aptly conceptualizing the current area as the Capitalocene (e.g. Moore, 2016) or the Chuthulucene (Haraway, 2016), this session aims at exploring and interrogating the underlying drivers of what Donna Haraway and Anna Tsing (2019) call the ‘Plantationocene’ to advance non-binary conceptions of culture-nature relationships.

Distinguishable from the other ‘cenes’, the “Plantationocene” identifies a common root to the inter-relationships between climate change, ecological collapse, capitalism, systemic racism/white supremacy, labour relations, and growing inequality. It emphasizes the disciplining logics that have characterized the history of racialized human labour and ecological complexity of plantation agriculture: homogeneity, predictability, calculability, and control (Ritzer, 1998, Haraway, 2015). For Tsing (2015), plantation logics refer to the efficiency by which the plantation expands in replicating an idealized blueprint modelled on the characteristics of often theoretically-presumed and controlled conditions of the motherland (e.g. global North). For McKittrick (2013), the capacity to substitute racialized labouring bodies and non-human natures as factors of plantation production is in need of paramount consideration. In this sense, we understand the plantation logic as originating from the central western thought of gendered and racialized reason/nature “hyperseparation” that creates hierarchies of superiority and control between linked up dualistic structures: culture over nature, mind over matter, men over women, master over colonized (Plumwood, 1993; Bird Rose, 2011). Plantation logics are thus not limited only to the physical transformation of the earth in the appropriation of human and non-human “resources”, but also to the ordering of the world that polarizes and hierarchizes people along class, racial, gender, and sexual-orientation lines; one that is geared towards faster and more efficient export (of ideas, of products, of experiences), and an intense regulation of human cognition and behaviour (Davis et al., 2019).

Yet, attempts to carry out plantation logics often fail in the face of continual emergence of multi-species unfoldings, the unpredictable and continuous emergence of relationships rooted in connectivity, care and resistance, even as such unfoldings (also) might serve as new ways for plantation logics to maintain their hegemony and reassert their control and seeming all-pervasiveness (Aldeia & Alves, 2019). It is increasingly crucial to identify ways in which multispecies flourishing takes place, in spite of the violence of simplified landscapes and disconnected communities, and the potential this provides for furthering alternative futures. We therefore aim to bring together a collection of presentations that explore the theoretical and empirical basis of plantation ecologies and ways by which alternative ecologies emerge and are sustained even within the realm of the plantation. We invite contributions of diverse multimedia platforms that consider but are not limited to the following:

  • Empirical investigations into unruly relationalities in non-humans and humans alike and their intersections, which do not easily conform to theorized identities or objectified relations within the plantation;
  • Contingent and historically-situated examples of the ongoing history of plantation logics in radically transforming spatial and temporal relationships of human-nature entanglements, from the history of agriculture in colonized lands (Luke, 2018), tourism (Duffy, 2015), biodiversity conservation, cheap labour, the “green economy, (Harcourt and Nelson, 2015)” to the academic ‘production’ of knowledge (Welsh, 2019);
  • Defying plantation logics through “irrational” acts of care, joy, love, reciprocity, empathy- as the conditions to reinstate life- which cannot be rationalized, are at once rooted in defiance, resistance, and/or rage, and are dedicated to life’s incessant becoming into connectivity (Bird Rose, 2011; Stoetzer, 2018);
  • Limits to the Plantationocene concept: theoretical contributions on how far it takes us; pitfalls to avoid, and future research agendas; and
  • Explorations of the cognitive, epistemic, philosophical and historical roots of the plantation logic, and of their continuous reproduction through bio-/body- political techniques and cognitive technologies.

References

Aldeia, J. & Alves, F. Against the Environment. Problems in Society/Nature Relations. Frontiers in Sociology 4(Article 29). doi: 10.3380/isoc.2019.00029.

Bird Rose, D. (2011). Wild Dog Dreaming: Love and Extinction. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Bonneuil, C., & Fressoz, J.B. (2016). L’Événement anthropocène. La Terre, l’histoire et nous: La Terre, l’histoire et nous. Points.

Castree, N. (2017). Anthropocene : Social science misconstrued. Nature 541, 289.

Davis, J., Moulton, A.A., Van Sant, L., & Williams, B. (2019). Anthropocene, Capitalocene, … Plantationocene?: A Manifesto for Ecological Justice in an Age of Global Crises. Geography Compass. doi: 10.1111/gec3.12438.

Duffy, R. (2015). Nature-based tourism and neoliberalism: Concealing contradictions. Tourism Geographies 17(4): 529-543.

Ellis, E., Maslin, M., Boivin, N., & Bauer, A. (2016). Involve social scientists in defining the Anthropocene. Nature News 540(7632).

Haraway, D. (2015). Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin. Environmental Humanities 6(1), 159-165.

Haraway, D., Ishikawa, N., Gilbert, S.F.,  Olwig, K., Tsing, A.L., & Bubandt, N. (2016) Anthropologists Are Talking – About the Anthropocene, Ethnos, 81:3, 535-564, DOI: 10.1080/00141844.2015.1105838

Harcourt, W., and Nelson, I. (Eds.) (2015). Practising Feminist Political Ecologies: Moving beyond the ‘Green Economy.’ Zed Books Ltd., London.

Hopes, A. & Perry, L. (2019). Reflections on the Plantationocene: A conversation with Donna Haraway and Anna Tsing, moderated by Gregg Mitman. Edge Effects Magazine. Nelson Institute, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Luke, T.W. (2018). Tracing race, ethnicity, and civilization in the Anthropocene. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. doi: 10.1177/0263775818798030.

Malm, A., & Hornborg, A. (2014). The geology of mankind? A critique of the Anthropocene narrative. The Anthropocene Review 1(1), 62-69.

Moore, J.W. (Ed.) (2016). Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, History, and the Crisis of Capitalism. Oakland; PM Press.

Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge.

Pulido, L. (2018). Racism and the Anthropocene. In: G. Mitman, M. Armiero, & R. Emmett (Eds.), Future remains: A cabinet of curiosities for the Anthropocene (pp. 116-128). Chicago; University of Chicago Press.

Ritzer, G. (1998). The McDonaldization thesis: Explorations and extensions. London ; Sage.

Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P., & McNeill, J. (2011). The Anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences369(1938), 842-867.

Stoetzer, B. (2018). Ruderal ecologies: Rethinking nature, migration, and the urban landscape in Berlin. Cultural Anthropology 33(2): 295-323.

Todd, Z. (2015). Indigenizing the Anthropocene. Art in the Anthropocene: Encounters among aesthetics, politics, environments and epistemologies, 241-254.

Tsing, A.L. (2015). The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Welsh, J. (2019). Dispossessing academics: The shift to ‘appropriation’ in the governing of academic life. European Journal of Social Theory. doi: 10.1177/1368431019854998.

 

CfP POLLEN20 – ‘Ecosystem Services’, ‘Natural Capital’ and the future of environmental politics

Third Biennial Conference of the Political Ecology Network (POLLEN20)
Contested Natures: Power, Possibility, Prefiguration
Brighton, United Kingdom
24-26 June 2020

Session organizers

Markus Leibenath (Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, Dresden, Germany) and Brian Coffey (RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia).

Submissions should include author name(s)affiliation(s)country and email address(es)paper title and an abstract (250 words maximum). They should be sent to m.leibenath@ioer.de by 18th November, 2019.

Session description

Recent years have seen a proliferation of economic concepts and metaphors such as ‘Green Growth’, ‘Ecosystem Services’ (ES) and ‘Natural Capital’ (NC) – not only at global and international levels, but also in many national debates on environmental and conservation policies (Coffey 2015). These terms are often associated with a neoliberal governmentality (Leibenath 2017) and with the proliferation of economic, market-based instruments such as Payments for Ecosystem Services. In any case ES and NC have hitherto been articulated mostly with reformist political projects such as New Green Deal and Green Economy.

However, some voices claim that most debates about ES and NC “remain, by and large, on the margins of policy-making and capital flows” (Dempsey 2016) without much effect on political and economic decision-making. Others assert that one always has to consider the respective political contexts and that it is questionable to make generalising statements about the political effects of ES and NC. Against this background, one aim of this session is to elucidate if and how environmental and conservation policies (including spatial/ landscape planning) have changed at national and sub-national levels under the influence of ES and NC discourses.

Moreover, there are many calls for far-reaching transitions towards greater ecological sustainability (or strong sustainability) which also take into account issues of environmental justice, understood as justice on one planet (Bell 2017). Therefore another guiding question runs if and how concepts such as ES and NC can contribute to these ambitions, for instance by employing them in a more participatory manner or by utilising them for highlighting world-spanning socio-ecological (tele-)connections and injustices.

And finally we are interested in conceptual alternatives to ES and NC. Some authors already have proposed alternatives (or far-reaching expansions) such as the notion of hybrid labour in the sense of co-production by humans and non-humans (Battistoni 2017), the idea of granting rights to nature, or different varieties of an ethic of care and stewardship, rooted in eco-feminist thinking. It would be interesting to introduce and compare several of these perspectives, to assess their potential to influence life-styles, policies and decisions, and finally to report on related experiences from different cultural and political contexts.

We invite conceptual contributions as well as papers with a more empirical orientation from a broad range of perspectives – be it interpretive policy analysis, post-structuralism, governmentality, feminism, ANT or other.

References

Battistoni, A. (2017), Bringing in the work of nature: From natural capital to hybrid labor. Political Theory, 45, 1, 5-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591716638389

Bell, D. (2017), Justice on one planet. In: Gardiner, S. M. & Thompson, A. (Hrsg.), The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics (276-287). Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199941339.013.25

Coffey, B. (2015), Unpacking the politics of natural capital and economic metaphors in environmental policy discourse. Environmental Politics, 203-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1090370

Dempsey, J. (2016), Enterprising Nature: Economics, Markets, and Finance in Global Biodiversity Politics. Malden (MA), Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118640517

Leibenath, M. (2017), Ecosystem services and neoliberal governmentality – German style. Land Use Policy, 64, 307-316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.02.037