Abstract

Power plays a key role in definitions of political ecology. Likewise, empirical studies within this field tend to provide detailed presentations of various uses of power, involving corporate and conservation interventions influencing access to land and natural resources. The results include struggle and conflict. Yet, there is a lack of theoretical elaboration showing how power may be understood in political ecology. In this article, we start to fill this gap by reviewing the different theoretical perspectives on power that have dominated this field. There are combinations of influences, two of them being actor-oriented and neo-Marxist approaches used from the 1980s. Typically, case studies are presented of environmental interventions by a broad range of actors at various scales from the local to the global. The focus has been on processes involving actors behind these interventions, as well as the outcomes for different social groups. Over the last two decades, in political ecology we have increasingly seen a move in power perspectives towards poststructuralist thinking about "discursive power", inspired by Foucault. Today, the three approaches (actor-oriented, neo-Marxist and Foucauldian) and their combinations form a synergy of power perspectives that provide a set of rich and nuanced insights into how power is manifested in environmental conflicts and governance. We argue that combining power perspectives is one of political ecology's strengths, which should be nurtured through a continuous examination of a broad spectrum of social science theories on power.

Highlights

  • Power plays a key role in definitions of political ecology

  • Michael Watts (1983) provides an early example of such a power analysis in political ecology by focusing on how historically produced social structures condition the agency of individual smallholders, in his study of small-scale farming in northern Nigeria

  • Through the examination above of the main power perspectives in political ecology, we have shown that from the 1980s and until the present, neo-Marxist perspectives on economic structures have been combined with explicit focii on the agencies of actors behind corporative and conservation interventions as well as acts of resistance

Read more

Summary

Where is the power in political ecology?

As an early contributor to what became political ecology, Eric Wolf - inspired by Marx and Foucault - made a sketch of "modes of power" ranging from power as attribution of a person, to structural power (Wolf 1989/2001) Another example is Ribot and Peluso (2003) who draw from a neo-Weberian focus on power in recognizing the agency of individual actors, while bringing in more structure-influenced Marxist and Foucauldian power perspectives. We argue for the value of a continued broad approach to power in political ecology examining and integrating aspects of these power perspectives as well as other relevant contributions As this is the first of four articles of this Special Section of JPE on power, we introduce the three other articles, which represent, in different ways, varieties of how Foucauldian perspectives on power are made relevant and currently used within political ecology and combined with some elements from other perspectives. The four articles show different ways that power in this field has been addressed far, how power tends to be addressed today, and they provide suggestions for future conceptualisations of power within political ecology

Actor-oriented power perspectives
Neo-Marxist power perspectives
Poststructuralist power perspectives
Discussion and conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call