July / 10 / 2024
By: Mara J. Goldman and Shruthi Jagadeesh
Political ecology (PE) has been described as a “riotously diverse” (T. Perreault, Bridge, & McCarthy, 2015, p. 3) analytical approach and academic subfield. We suggest that this diversity makes PE uniquely fit to address the overlapping socio-ecological crises of our times, while also exposing ‘cracks’ in existing narratives and analyses, where rays of hope, resistance, and renewal shine through. We argue for new metaphors that foreground this diversity and pave the way for building more just and plural futures. While recognizing that metaphors do not replace much needed material and political change (Bluwstein, 2021; Tuck and Yang 2012), we argue they are essential for organizing our work as political ecologists.
Metaphors matter. They help people and communities make sense of the world and provide guidance for how to interact with our surroundings. As scholars and activists, metaphors provide context and meaning for the work we do. And metaphors are not new to political ecology. Many scholars and students have found guidance in metaphors provided by Paul Robbins, particularly of PE as hatchet and seed: “aggressively dismantl[ing] other accounts,” while simultaneously making space for and nurturing “other possibilities (planting intellectual and practical seeds)” (Robbins, 2012, p. 98). This metaphor has gained much traction over the years, and students see it as a way to remain hopeful while honing their ability to critique mainstream explanations of environmental concerns. Robbins also proposed another metaphor – PE as trickster, with its “insistence on borrowing and allying with neighboring approaches (e.g. land change science, resilience, vulnerability) even while undermining them” through critique (Robbins, 2015, p. 89).
In appreciation of these metaphors, we shift the focus to feminist and Indigenous attention to intersectionality, relations, and alliances (Carroll, C. 2015; Harcourt, 2023; Todd, 2014, 2015), to foreground framings that celebrate diversity and plurality. We propose the “kaleidoscope” and “companion discipline” to replace the hatchet and seed and the trickster respectively.
We seek to revive Diane Rocheleau’s metaphor of kaleidoscope (2003), and the call by Rocheleau and Roth for a methodology of “seeing multiple,” from situated perspectives within polycentric models (Rocheleau, 2004)” (Rocheleau & Roth, 2007, p. 433). We argue for the kaleidoscope as both metaphor and method in political ecology. As an instrument, a kaleidoscope presents seemingly endless combinations of the objects within, presenting a unique combination to the viewer each time the instrument is turned. A kaleidoscope can also be used to view objects outside itself and transform them into complex combinations of light and shape. A kaleidoscope fractures and reconfigures what are assumed to be simple objects (or environmental concerns or solutions), while also creating new combinations and multiple possibilities of reality.
A kaleidoscope is useful for thinking about the diversity of approaches that political ecology scholars take (political economy, ecologically-informed, post structural, STS-informed, feminist, Indigenous) as well as for the various ways of knowing that currently fall outside (or at the margins) of the discipline (Sultana, 2020). Kaleidoscopic visions are needed to fully understand the multiple overlapping crises, the various ways they are experienced, and different possible solutions. For instance, to understand the biodiversity crises we need a critical political economy perspective on the dangers of extractivism and historicized accounts of both material and economic dispossession as complicit within the spread of capitalism. But, we also need a critical awareness of how the science of conservation biology works and how it prioritizes some processes and forms of measurement at the expense of others. A critical STS-informed PE helps with this, while critical race/caste/Indigenous scholarship exposes how colonial and racialized categories within mainstream conservation practice and policy work to exclude some people and their knowledge and privilege others. We need feminist and Indigenous political ecology to foreground different ways of interacting with and knowing the crises and proposed solutions across different timelines. These different spheres of political ecology working together can help expose the complexity and multiplicity of the bigger picture, the cracks in the mainstream arguments, along with the rays of hope already emerging from various anti-capitalist, Indigenous and community-based movements.
In sum, we argue that “kaleidoscope” as metaphor and method can move political ecology to 1) embrace the value of all the various perspectives and streams within the subdiscipline and recognize that each combination of approaches produces different and valuable outputs, 2) encourage more recognition of other ways of knowing, seeing, and being in the world to create different combinations of reality that are attuned to issues of power and justice, and 3) expose cracks and openings, for building new solutions, and supporting emergent ones, for plural and just futures. As a publication on “Stockholm+50” planning argues, “A Kaleidoscope resists a unified story of truth and instead attempts to reflect the plural realities of our planet” (Day & Passarelli, 2022).
In proposing the trickster metaphor, Robbins argued that “in a world hurtled forward by the forces of contradiction, a contradictory science like political ecology remains an essential field for explanation and action.” (Robbins, 2015, p. 90). The trickster embodies the notion of contradiction–helping while undermining, convincing but also conniving, useful but also troublesome. We suggest that as the contradictions and conflicts within society continue to deepen, what we need now are metaphors of companionship, alliance, and ‘standing with’ rather than the troublesome, conniving, and contradictory characteristics associated with the trickster. Again, we draw from feminist scholarship to expand on this notion. Rocheleau spoke about the need to work “through an epistemology of allies” (433). Haraway (1993, 2006) introduced the idea of “companion species” as a way to discuss mutual need and care, and to deconstruct the binary between human and non-human. And Sundberg (2014) argues for the importance of “learning to learn about multiplicity” in ways that reflect a deep commitment to solidarity and justice. We propose that rather than a trickster, PE be seen as a “companion discipline” working alongside and sometimes together with other disciplines and epistemologies from restoration ecology, conservation biology, and climate science to law, business and economics, to Indigenous and local community knowledge and insight. In this way, PE can move beyond critique to work with and walk withour companions to expose cracks in mainstream analyses and encourage and help with kaleidoscopic methods, and respectful techniques of co-production. We see this as a possible productive turn in how PE can work on policy relevant work without losing its critical edge, while also being strong allies for Indigenous Communities and Activist groups.
To build more just and plural political ecologies, we need to modify the metaphors we work with. Metaphors that celebrate diversity and inclusion, and present new challenges and articulations of the struggles we face globally. Whether turning the kaleidoscope and proposing new visions or acting as a companion on the journey of research and policy production.
Alhojärvi, T., & Sirviö, H. (2018). Affirming political ecology: Seeds, hatchets and situated entanglements. Nordia Geographical Publications, 47(5), 1-6.
Bluwstein, J. (2021). Transformation is not a metaphor. Political Geography, 90, 102450.
Carroll, C. (2015). Roots of our renewal: Ethnobotany and Cherokee environmental governance. University of Minnesota Press.
Day, A., & Passarelli, D. (2022). Reimagining the human-environment relationship through a kaleidoscope. UN University and UN Environment Programme.
Haraway, D. J. (2003). The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people, and significant otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
Haraway, D. (2006). Encounters with companion species: Entangling dogs, baboons, philosophers, and biologists. Configurations, 14(1), 97-114.
Harcourt, W., Agostino, A., Elmhirst, R., Gómez, M., & Kotsila, P. (2023). Contours of feminist political ecology. Palgrave Macmillan.
Perreault, T., Bridge, G., & McCarthy, J. (2015). The Routledge handbook of political ecology. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.11.004.
Rocheleau, D., (2003, November 19-23). Through the kaleidoscope: Place and the complex construction of power in emergent ecologies [Conference Presentation]. Annual Meeting of American Association of Anthropologists (AAA), Chicago, IL, United States.
Rocheleau, D., & Roth, R. (2007). Rooted networks, relational webs and powers of connection: Rethinking human and political ecologies. Geoforum, 38, 433–437.
Sultana, F. (2020). Political ecology 1: From margins to center. Progress in Human Geography, 030913252093675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132520936751
Sundberg, J. (2014). Decolonizing posthumanist geographies. Cultural Geographies, 21(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474013486067
Todd, Z. (2015). Indigenizing the anthropocene. In H. Davis and E Turpin (Eds.), Art in the anthropocene: Encounters among aesthetics, politics, environments and epistemologies (pp. 241-254). Open Humanities Press. https://library.oapen.org/viewer/web/viewer.html?file=/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/33191/560010.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Todd, Zoe. (2014). Fish pluralities: Human-animal relations and sites of engagement in Paulatuuq, Arctic Canada. Études/Inuit/Studies, 38(1/2), 217-238. https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/etudinuit/2014-v38-n1-2-etudinuit01719/1028861ar.pdf
Tuck, E., & Yang, K W. (2012) Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1): 1–40
Whyte, K. P. (2018). Indigenous science (fiction) for the Anthropocene: Ancestral dystopias and fantasies of climate change crises. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 1(1-2), 224-242.
