Notes
- Thanks to Arturo Escobar whose engaging writings have done so much to further my thinking. I would also like to give special thanks to Wayne Fife who first encouraged me to pursue this project. Although I take full responsibility for its final contents, earlier drafts of the manuscript benefited from insightful comments by Sharon Roseman, Barbara Neis, John Kennedy, Rhonda Burke, Dean Bavington, Rumel Haider, Fiona Mackenzie and Christina Rojas. Financial support during the researching and writing of this article was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Coasts Under Stress Research Project, and Memorial University.
- Arturo Escobar, “Constructing Nature: Elements for a Poststructural Political Ecology,” in R. Peet and M. Watts, (eds.), Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), pp. 46–68.
- Ibid, p. 55.
- Ibid.
- Arturo Escobar, Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).
- Arturo Escobar, “Planning,” in W. Sachs, (ed.), The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power (London and New Jersey: Zed Books Ltd., 1992), p.135.
- Escobar, Encountering Development…, 1995, p. 10.
- Ibid, p. 8.
- Escobar, “Planning,” (1992), p. 136.
- Arturo Escobar, “Anthropology and Development,” International Social Science Journal 154 (1997), pp. 497–515.
- Escobar, Encountering Development…, (1995).
- Arturo Escobar, “After Nature: Steps to an Antiessentialist Political Ecology,” Current Anthropology 40/1 (1999), pp. 1–30; S. Hvalkof and Arturo Escobar, “Nature, Political Ecology, and Social Practice: Toward an Academic and Political Agenda,” in A.H. Goodman and T.L. Leatherman, (eds.), Building a New Biocultural Synthesis: Political—Economic Perspectives on Human Biology (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1998), pp. 425–450.
- Escobar, “After Nature.”
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Arturo Escobar, “Welcome to Cyberia: Notes on the Anthropology of Cyberculture,” Current Anthropology 35/3 (1994), pp. 211–231.
- Escobar, “Constructing Nature;” Escobar, “After Nature.”
- Arturo Escobar, “Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature? Biodiversity, Conservation, and the Political Ecology of Social Movements,” Journal of Political Ecology 5 (1998), pp. 53–82; Escobar, “After Nature.”
- Although Escobar (1996) sees the sustainable development discourse as growing in influence, he does not argue that it will eventually displace more conventional forms of development. Rather, Escobar describes a world in which new conservationist forms of capitalism coexist with more destructive forms.
- Escobar, “Constructing Nature,” p. 51.
- Ibid.’, Escobar, “After Nature.”
- Escobar, “Constructing Nature,” p. 51.
- Ibid., p. 52.
- Ibid., p. 52.
- Escobar, “Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature?”
- Ibid. Escobar, “After Nature.”
- Escobar, “Constructing Nature;” Escobar, “Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature?”
- Escobar, “After Nature.”
- In an earlier essay, Escobar (1994) uses the term “cyberculture” to describe many of the same trends that he later subsumes under the “technonature” label.
- Escobar, “After Nature,” p. 11.
- Escobar, “Welcome to Cyberia;” Escobar, “Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature?;” Escobar “After Nature.”
- Escobar, Encountering Development…, 1995, p. 226.
- Escobar, “Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature?” p. 54.
- Escobar, “After Nature.”
- Ibid, p. 13.
- This perspective owes an obvious debt to Donna Haraway's (1991) argument that there are now unprecedented opportunities to create hybrid, or “cyborg,” identities by selectively drawing upon organic, technological, and textual elements. This influence is well acknowledged by Escobar (1999).
- Escobar, “Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature?,” p. 64
- “Culture, Economics, and Politics in Latin American Social Movements Theory and Research,” in A. Escobar and S.E. Alvarez, (eds.), The Making of Social Movements in Latin America: Identity, Strategy, and Democracy (Boulder, San Francisco and Oxford: Westview Press, 1992).
- Escobar, Encountering Development…, (1995), p. 219.
- Hvalkof and Escobar, “Nature, Political Ecology and Social Practice;” Escobar, “Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature?,” p. 54; Escobar, “After Nature.”
- “Culture Sits in Places: Reflections on Globalism and Subaltern Strategies of Localization,” Political Geography 20 (2001), p. 170.
- K. Milton, “Comments on After Nature: Toward an Antiessentialist Political Ecology,’” Current Anthropology 40/1 (1999), pp. 21–22.
- S. Stonich, “Comments on “After Nature: Toward an Antiessentialist Political Ecology,” Current Anthropology 40/1 (1999), pp. 23–24.
- Ibid, p. 24.
- E.N. Anderson, “On an Antiessentialist Political Ecology,” Current Anthropology 41/1 (2000), p. 105.
- D. Lehmann, “An Opportunity Lost: Escobar's Deconstruction of Development,” Journal of Development Studies 33/4 (1997), p. 575.
- Ibid., p. 575.
- Ibid., p. 575.
- Arturo Escobar, “Beyond the Search for a Paradigm? Post Development and Beyond,” Development 43/4 (2001), p. 2.
- Ibid., p. 2.
- Escobar, “Constructing Nature,” p. 46.
- P.D. Little and M. Painter, “Discourse, Politics, and the Development Process: Reflections on Escobar's “Anthropology and the Development Encounter,” American Ethnologist 22/3 (1997), p. 605.
- Ibid, p. 606.
- Escobar, “Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature?,” p. 437.
- Ibid, p. 437.
- Escobar, “After Nature,” pp. 25–26.
- Little and Painter, “Discourse, Politics and the Development Process,” p. 605.
- Lehmann, “An Opportunity Lost,” p. 573.
- S. Autumn, “Anthropologists, Development, and Situated Truth,” Human Organization 55/4 (1996), pp. 480–484.
- D.S. Moore, “The Crucible of Cultural Politics: Reworking “Development” in Zimbabwe's Eastern Highlands,” American Ethnologist 26/3 (2000), pp. 654–689.
- Ibid., p. 659.
- M.T. Berger, “Post-Cold War Capitalism: Modernization and Modes of Resistance After the Fall,” Third World Quarterly 16/4 (1995), p. 720.
- J.D. Hill, “Comments on '”After Nature: Toward an Antiessentialist Political Ecology,'” Current Anthropology 40/1 (1999), pp. 18–19.
- M.P. Cowan and R.W. Shenton, Doctrines of Development (London and New York: Routledge, 1996).
- This criticism may not be wholly justified. Escobar and Alvarez (1992) coedited a book about Latin American social movements which explicitly addressed the question of internal differentiation. While Escobar is clearly aware of the fact that all social movements are characterized by heterogeneity and internal conflicts, many of his subsequent writings tend to gloss over this issue. This may be due to the fact that, in these later writings, he has become more concerned with exploring the ways in which group identities are reified for political purposes, and less interested in exploring the specific tensions that continue to exist within them.
- Autumn, “Anthropologists, Development and Situated Truth,” p. 482.
- D.A. Cleveland, “Comments on '”After Nature: Toward an Antiessentialist Political Ecology,'” Current Anthropology 40/1 (1999), pp. 17–18.
- Autumn, “Anthropologists, Development and Situated Truth,” p. 480.
- Ibid., p. 481.
- Ibid., p. 482.
- Berger, “Post-Cold War Capitalism.”
- Escobar, “Beyond the Search for a Paradigm.”
- Ibid., p. 2.
- Ibid., p. 2.
- R. Davis, “Open Concepts: Critical Transformations in Anthropological Studies of Ecology,” Unpublished Manuscript.
- A.H. Goodman and T.L. Leatherman, (eds.). Building a New Biocultural Synthesis: Political-Economic Perspectives on Human Biology (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1998).
- P. Descola and G. Palsson, (eds.), Nature and Society: Anthropological Perspectives (London and New York: Routledge, 1996); Goodman and Leatherman, (eds.), Building a New Biocultural Synthesis…, 1998; I. Scoones, “New Ecology and the Social Sciences: What Prospects for Fruitful Engagement?” Annual Review of Anthropology 28 (1999), pp. 479–507.