Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research

After Nature: Steps to an Antiessentialist Political Ecology [and Comments and Replies]
Author(s): Arturo Escobar, Eeva Berglund, Peter Brosius, David A. Cleveland, Jonathan D. Hill,
Dorothy L. Hodgson, Enrique Leff, Kay Milton, Dianne E. Rocheleau, Susan C. Stonich
Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Feb., 1999), pp. 1-30
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2991337
Accessed: 17/08/2010 13:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume40, Numberi, February i999
? i999 byThe Wenner-Gren Research.All rightsreserved
FoundationforAnthropological ooi I-3204/99/400I-ooo0$3.00

At theendofthe 20th century, thequestionofnature

AfterNature remainsunresolved in anymodemsocial or epistemo-

logicalorder.BythisI meannotonlymodempeople's
inabilitytofindwaysofdealingwithnaturewithoutde-
stroying it but thefactthattheanswersgivento "the
questionof nature"by modemformsof knowledge-
Stepsto an Antiessentialist fromthenaturalto thehumansciences-have proven
PoliticalEcology' insufficient to thetask,despitetheremarkable
wardtheyseemtohavetakenin recentdecades.Thatat
leapfor-

therootofmostenvironmental problemslie particular

formsof social organization-domineering, capitalist,
byArturoEscobar patriarchal,orwhathaveyou-is no explanation forthe
impasse at which the environmental sciences find
themselvestoday.The factis thatwe (who,and why?)
seemcompelledto raisethequestionofnaturein a new
way. Could it be because the basic constructswith
This paperpresentstheoutlineofan anthropologicalpolitical whichmodernity has equippedus forthistask-includ-
ecologythatfullyacknowledgestheconstructedness ofnature
whilesuggestingstepsto weave togethertheculturaland thebio- ingnatureand culturebutalso society,culture, polity,
From
grounds.
logicalon constructivist rain
tropical foreststo ad- and economy-no longerallow us to interrogateour-
vancedbiotechnology theresourcesforinventing
laboratories, na- selves and naturein ways thatmightyieldnovel an-
The paperproposes
turesand culturesare unevenlydistributed. swers? Or perhaps because, as Marilyn Strathern
an antiessentialistframework the manifold
forinvestigating
formsthatthenaturaltakesin today'sworld.This proposal (i992a) has suggested,we have enteredan epoch which
buildson current politicalecol-
trendsin ecologicalanthropology, is definedbythesenseofbeing"afternature"?
ogy,and social and culturalstudiesofscienceand technology. The "crisisofnature"is also a crisisofnature'siden-
The resulting framework identifiesand conceptualizesthreedis- tity.The meaningof nature,to be sure,has shifted
tinctbut interrelated natureregimes-organic,capitalist,and throughouthistoryaccordingto cultural,socioeco-
techno-and sketchestheircharacteristics, theirarticulations,
and theircontradictions. The politicalimplicationsoftheanaly- nomic,andpoliticalfactors. As Raymond Williamssuc-
sis are discussedin termsofthe strategiesofhybridnaturesthat cinctlyputit,"theideaofnaturecontains,thoughoften
mostsocial groupsseem to be facedwithas theyencounter, and unnoticed, amountofhumanhistory"
an extraordinary
tryto stem,particularmanifestations oftheenvironmental (i980:68). Rejectingessentialstatementsaboutthena-
crisis.
tureofnature,he goes on to assertthatin such state-
ments"theideaofnatureis theideaofman... theidea
ARTURO ESCOBAR is Professor ofAnthropology at theUniversity
ofMassachusetts, Amherst(Amherst, Mass. 01003, U.S.A.). Born ofmanin society, indeedtheideasofkindsofsocieties"
and raisedin Colombia,he was educatedinitiallyin thesci- (P. 7I). That naturecame to be thoughtofas separate
ences,witha B.S. in chemicalengineering at theUniversidaddel frompeopleand increasingly producedthroughlabor,
Valle in Cali, Colombia (II975), a year of graduate work in bio- forinstance,is relatedto the view of "man" brought
chemistry at thesame university, and a Master'sin nutrition and aboutby capitalismand modernity. Followingin Wil-
foodscienceat CornellUniversity (1978). Afteran interdisciplin-
aryPh.D. at Berkeley(II987),he taughtat theUniversity ofCali- liams's tradition,Barbara
Bender writesthatpeople's
fornia,SantaCruz,and SmithCollegebeforejoiningthefaculty experience ofnatureand landscapes"is basedin large
at theUniversity ofMassachusettsin 1994. His interestsare po- measureon theparticularity ofthesocial,politicaland
liticalecologyand theanthropology ofdevelopment, social move- economicrelationswithinwhich theylive out their
He is theauthorofEncoun-
ments,and scienceand technology.
PrincetonUniversity
teringDevelopment(Princeton: Press,1995) lives" (I993a:246). A landscape ethnographyemerges
and coeditor of Cultures of Politics/Politics of Cultures: Re- fromtheseworkswhichwouldreadhistoryback into
visioningLatinAmericanSocial Movements(Boulder:Westview theseemingly naturaltextofnature.
workingon a book based on field-
Press,i998). He is currently Thereareothersourcesthatnewlyunsettleourlong-
workin thePacificCoast rainforestofColombiatentatively standingunderstanding of nature.As variouswriters
entitled Hybrid Natures: Cultural and Biological Diversity in
theLate TwentiethCentury.The presentpaperwas submitted have observed(Harawayi99i, Strathemi992b, Rabi-
23 XII 97 and accepted 5 I 98; the final version reached the Edi- now i992, Soperi996), we mightbe witnessing-inthe
tor's office3 III 98. wake ofunprecedented intervention intonatureat the
molecularlevel-the finaldeclineofthemodemideol-
ogyofnaturalism, thatis, thebeliefin theexistenceof
pristineNatureoutsideofhistoryand humancontext.
i. The basic framework ofthispaperwas firstpresented in a panel Letus be clearaboutwhatthisideologyentails.We are
on theanthropology ofscienceat the 1994 annualmeetingsofthe
AmericanAnthropological Association.I thankRaynaRappforher talkinghereaboutnatureas an essentialprincipleand
commentson thatoccasion.The firstfull-length versionwas pre- foundationalcategory,a groundforbothbeingandsoci-
paredforNeil Smith's special seminar,"Ecologies: Rethinking ety,natureas "an independentdomain of intrinsic
Nature/Culture" at RutgersUniversity, October22, I996. I thank value,truth,orauthenticity"(Soperi996:22). To assert
himandtheotherparticipants fortheirgenerousandcreativecom- from
ments.I also thankDianne Rocheleau,SorenHvalkof,AlettaBier- thedisappearance ofthisnotionis quitedifferent
sack,and studentsin mygraduateseminaron theanthropology of denyingthe existenceof a biophysicalreality-predis-
nature(Fall i996) forcriticalcommentson thepaper'sideas. cursiveandpresocial,ifyouwish-with structures and
2 | CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 40, Number i, Februaryi999

processesofits own whichthelifesciencestryto un- Slayter, andWangarii996) otherfields,suchas anthro-

derstand. It means,on theonehand,thatforus humans pological political economy (JohnstonI994, I997;
(andthisincludeslifescientistsand ecologists)nature Greenberg and Park I994; Brownn.d.),social ecology
is alwaysconstructed by our meaning-giving and dis- (Hellern.d.),feministtheory,environmental history,
cursiveprocesses,so thatwhatwe perceiveas natural sociology, andhistorical archaeology, arejoiningin this
is also culturaland social;said differently,
natureis si- collectiveeffort. The initialstep,as some recentre-
multaneouslyreal, collective,and discursive-fact, viewerssee it,was theinfusion, in theI970s, ofcultural
power,anddiscourse-andneedstobe naturalized, soci- and human ecologywith considerations of political
ologized,and deconstructed accordingly(LatourI993). economy(Bryanti992, Peet and Wattsi996). In the
On theotherhand,it meansthatourownbeliefsin na- i980s and the i99os, thispolitical-economy-driven po-
tureas untouchedand independent are givingway- liticalecologyabsorbedotherelements, particularlythe
withmoleculartechnosciences fromrecombinant DNA poststructuralist analysesof knowledge,institutions,
to genemappingand nanotechnology-to a new view development, and social movements(Peet and Watts
of natureas artificially produced.This entailsan un- i996) andfeminist insightsintothegendered character
precedented ontologicaland epistemological transfor-ofknowledge, environment, and organizations (Roche-
mationwhich we have hardlybegunto understand. leau, Thomas-Slayter, and Wangarii996). Fromthese
Whatnew combinations ofnatureand culturewill be- tworecentvolumes-intendedto guideresearchunder
comepermissible and practicable? therubricsofliberationecologyand feminist political
Worldwide,the transformation of the biologicalis ecology,respectively-amorenuancedaccountofboth
yieldinga greatvarietyof formsof the natural.From nature-society relationsand politicalecologyis emerg-
tropicalrainforeststo advancedbiotechnology labora- ing.Ithighlights theinterwoven character ofthediscur-
tories,the culturaland biologicalresourcesforcollec- sive, material,social, and culturaldimensionsof the
tivelyinventingnaturesand identitiesare veryun- human-environment relation.Whileempiricalstudies
evenlydistributed. As muchas identities, naturescan basedon theseframeworks have been takingplace for
be thoughtof as hybridand multiform, changingin some years,"in a sense the theoretical workhas only
character fromplace to place andfromone set ofprac- justbegan"(Peetand Wattsi996:39).
tices to another.In fact,individualsand collectivities Thispapertakestheseaccomplishments as a pointof
arecompelledtodayto holdvariousnaturesin tension. departure in reexamining thehuman-environment rela-
One mightsituatethesenaturesaccordingto various tionin thecontextofboththeontologicaltransforma-
coordinates ordrawcartographies ofconceptsandprac- tion of natureand its unevenness.Buildingupon the
ticesto orientoneselfin thecomplexfieldofthenatu- breakdown oftheideologyofessentialnatureandecho-
ral.Thispaperwillsuggestonesuchparticular cartogra- ing trendsin poststructuralist feminist, political,and
phyin termsoftheaxesoftheorganicandtheartificial. criticalracetheories,2 it asks:Is it possibleto articulate
The firstpartpresentsthebasic principlesofphilo- an antiessentialist theoryofnature?Is therea view of
sophicalandpoliticalantiessentialism. The secondpro- naturethatgoesbeyondthetruismthatnatureis con-
posesa framework ofnatureregimeson antiessentialiststructedto theorizethe manifoldformsin whichit is
grounds,identifying organic,capitalist,and techno- culturallyconstructedand socially produced,while
natures.The thirdpartarguesfromtheperspective of fullyacknowledging thebiophysical basisofits consti-
rain-forestsocialmovements fortheinevitability ofhy- tution?Moreover, is an antiessentialiststandnota nec-
bridnaturesin thecontemporary world.This partalso essarycondition forunderstanding andradicalizing con-
readdressesthe questionof the possiblerelationbe- temporary social struggles overthe biologicaland the
tweenthebiologicalandthesocialsciencesin termsof cultural?On the political side, what implications
antiessentialist conception.In the conclusionI deal wouldsucha standhaveforsocial struggles, collective
withsomeofthepoliticalimplications oftheanalysis. identities, and theproduction ofexpertknowledge? Fi-
nally,is it possibleto construct a theoryofnaturethat
willgiveus an indicationofthetotality offormsnature
takestodaywithoutbeingtotalizing?
Antiessentialism:From Historyto Political Postmodernists and poststructuralists havetoo hast-
Ecology ily cometo thinkthatsincethereis no natureoutside
of history,thereis nothingnaturalabout nature.As
Politicalecologyis the most recentfieldto claim a Kate Soper(i996) constructively pointsout, this has
stakein illuminating "thequestionofnature."Itsmain placed culturaltheoristsat odds withenvironmental-
predecessors werethevariety oforientations in cultural ists,whoforthemostpartcontinueto espousethebe-
and human ecology in vogue from the i95os to the
I970S (see Hvalkofand Escobari998 fora reviewand 2. Forpoststructuralist
politicaltheoryI relyparticularly
on Laclau
KottakI997, Morani990). The fieldseemstobe experi- and Mouffe (II985; Mouffe 1993; Laclau I996). A comprehensive
encinga renaissancetoday.Whilegeographers andeco- readeron criticalrace theoryis Delgado II995I.Poststructuralist
and antiessentialist
debatesin feministtheorycovera vast field
logicaleconomistshavetakenthelead in thisendeavor impossibleto summarizein this paper;I will referthe readerto
(Blaikieand Brookfieldi987, Bryanti992, Peet and those thatfocuson natureand environment issues, particularly
Wattsi996, MartinezAlieriggS,Rocheleau,Thomas- Haraway (I989, I99I, I996).
 ESCOBAR AfterNature| 3

liefin external,prediscursive nature(Soule and Lease jectwe arefurther compelledto giveup theliberalidea
i995). It is necessaryto strivefora more balanced posi- of the subjectas a self-bounded, autonomous,rational
tionthatacknowledges boththeconstructedness ofna- individual.The subjectis producedby/inhistoricaldis-
turein humancontexts-thefactthatmuchof what coursesand practicesin a multiplicity of domains.
ecologistsreferto as naturalis indeedalso a productof Antiessentialist conceptionsof identityhighlight the
culture-andnaturein therealistsense,thatis, theex- factthatidentities(racial,sexual,ethnic,or whathave
istenceofan independent orderofnature,includinga you) are continuallyand differentially constituted-
biologicalbody,therepresentations ofwhichconstruc- partlyin contextsofpower-ratherthandeveloping out
tivistscan legitimately queryin termsoftheirhistory of an unchanging and preexisting core.Whatmatters,
orpoliticalimplications. It is thusthatwe can navigate then,is to investigate thehistorical constitution ofsub-
between"'nature-endorsing' and 'nature-sceptical' per- jectivityas a complexityof positionsand determina-
spectives"in order"to incorporate a greater awareness tionswithoutanytrueandunchanging essence,always
ofwhattheirrespective discourseson 'nature'maybe open and incomplete.Some see thiscritiqueofessen-
ignoring andpolitically repressing" (Soperi996: 23; see tialismarisingoutofpoststructuralism, thephilosophy
also Berglundi998). Forconstructivists, the challenge oflanguage, andhermeneutics as a sinequa nonforrad-
lies in learningto incorporate into theiranalysesthe ical social theorytodayand forunderstanding thewid-
biophysicalbasis ofreality;forrealistsit is examining ening of the field of social struggles(Laclau i996,
theirframeworks fromtheperspective oftheirhistori- Alvarez,Dagnino,and Escobari998).
cal constitution-accepting that,as scholarsin science Is the category"nature"susceptibleto thiskindof
and technology studieshave been demonstrating, the analysis?Ifseemingly solidcategorieslike societyand
naturalsciencesarenotahistoricaland nonideological. the subjecthavebeen subjectedto antiessentialist cri-
Thisdoubleandpressing needmustbe addressed in any tique,whyhas natureprovenso resistant? Indeed,even
politicalecologyframework. As RoyRappaport putit, so entrenched a categoryas "the capitalisteconomy"
"the relationshipof actions formulated in termsof has been the targetof a recentantiessentialist decen-
meaningto the systemsconstitutedby naturallaw tering(Gibson-Graham i996). The poststructuralist re-
withinwhichtheyoccuris, in myview,the essential thinking ofthesocial,theeconomy,and thesubject-
problematic ofecologicalanthropology" (i990:69). This and othertargetsof antiessentialist thought,particu-
statementsuggeststhe need fora dialoguebetween larlybinarygenderand essentialracialidentities-sug-
thosewho studymeaningsand thosewho study"natu- gestswaysofrethinking natureas havingno essential
rallaw." identity.As in the case of the othercategoriesmen-
Fromhere,however,to an antiessentialist theoryof tioned,theanalysiswouldhavea doublegoal:to exam-
naturethatacknowledges equallytheculturaland the ine the constitutiverelationsthat account for"na-
biologicalthereis a vastterrainto cover.3Politicsand ture"-biological,social,cultural-andtoopentheway
sciencedo not lendthemselvesto easyarticulation. A forrevealingethnographically or imagining discourses
politicaltheoryof naturehas yet to be built. The ofecological/cultural difference thatdo notreducethe
sourcesof antiessentialism are multiple.Two of its multiplicity ofthesocialandbiologicalworldsto a sin-
moreeloquentproponents, ErnestoLaclauandChantal gleoverarching principle ofdetermination ("thelaws of
Mouffe, startbyrecognizing thatthepolitical"mustbe theecosystem," "themodeofproduction," "theknowl-
conceivedas a dimensionthatis inherent to everyhu- edgesystem,"genetics,evolution,etc.).Ifdiscoursesof
mansocietyanddetermines ourveryontologicalcondi- naturecanbe saidtohavebeeneitherbiocentric (partic-
tion"(MouffeI993:3). (I wouldadd,includingourcon- ularlyin thenaturalsciences)oranthropocentric (inthe
dition as biologicalbeings.)Social life, they argue social and the humansciences),it is timeto question
(LaclauandMouffei985, MouffeI993, Laclau i996), is whatis takenas essentialto"nature"or"Man" in these
inherently politicalin thatit is thesiteofantagonisms discourses.At theend oftheroadwe mightbe able to
thatarise out of the veryexerciseof identity.Every recognizea plurality ofnatures-capitalist andnoncap-
identityis relational,whichmeansthatthe existence italist,modemand nonmodem, let us sayfornow-in
ofanyidentity entailstheaffirmation ofdifference and, whichboththe social and thebiologicalhave central,
hence,a potentialantagonism. Antagonisms areconsti- albeitnotessential,rolesto play.
tutiveofsociallife.In addition, giventhatmeaningcan- Let us now attempta definition ofpoliticalecology
notbe permanently fixed-a basic postulateofherme- thatwill facilitatethisantiessentialist exercise.I pro-
neuticsandpoststructuralism-identities aretheresult pose thisdefinition as a theoretical minimumforthe
of articulations thatare alwayshistoricaland contin- task at hand: Politicalecologycan be definedas the
gent.No identity orsocietycanbe described froma sin- studyofthemanifoldarticulations ofhistoryand biol-
gle and universalperspective. ogyandtheculturalmediations through whichsuchar-
Similarly, withpoststructuralism's theory ofthesub- ticulationsare necessarilyestablished.This definition
doesnotrelyon thecommoncategories ofnature,envi-
3. "The contradiction,perhapsinevitable,
ronment, or culture (as in cultural ecology, ecological
betweentheculturaland
thebiologicalis, in myview,amongthe mostfundamental prob- anthropology, and much of environmental thinking)or
lemsto be addressedbyan ecologically-aware anthropology" (Rap- on thesociologically orientednatureand society(as in
paport iggo:56). Marxisttheoriesof the productionof nature).The
41 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume40, Numberi, Februaryi999

choice of historyand biologyhas a precedentin Mi- Colombia,whereI havebeenworkingin recentyears.4

chelle Rosaldo's(i980) attemptat analyzingthe rela- We see herethreeactorsat work.The firstoftheseis
tionbetweensexandgenderin termsofwhatshecalled made up of local black and indigenouscommunities
"themutualaccommodation ofbiologyandhistory." It thatforseveralcenturieshave been activein the cre-
also resonateswithsome recentproposalsforlooking ationof lifeworlds and landscapesofparticularkinds.
at history/biology interaction fromphenomenologicalThese lifeworlds and landscapesare unfamiliar to us.
perspectives. It maybe objectedthatin the proposed Letus saythatwe startourjourneyat thesourceofone
definition I am introducing biologyand historyas new of the innumerable riversthatflowfromthe Andean
and perhapsessentialand binarycentersof analysis. slopestowardsthe littoraland thatas we descendwe
This maybe so, althoughthebinarismwill be compli- findthatindigenouscommunitiesgive way to black
cated shortly.The definition does, however,displace settlements and,as theriveropensintoan estuary, we
natureandsocietyfromtheirlong-held positionofpriv- startseeingsmall townsand even a fewwhites.Soon
ilege in Westernanalyses."Nature" is a specifically we findourselvesfacedwitha verydifferent landscape,
moderncategory, and manynonmodern societieshave onethatwe immediately recognize. Perhapsit is a plan-
beenshownto lacksucha category as we understand it tationofAfrican palmoran orderly successionoflarge
(Williamsi980, Stratherni980); I have alreadysug- rectangular pools (overa hectareeach)fortheartificial
gestedthatourmodemnotionofnatureis also disap- cultivation ofshrimpforexport.Herewe finda capital-
pearingunderthe weightof new technologies. "Soci- ist at work,makingdevelopment happenand, he ar-
ety" has similarlybeen shown by poststructuralistgues,providing jobs forhundredsof black workersin
criticsto lack thestructure andlaws withwhichit has the plantationsor in the shrimpand fishpackaging
beenendowedbythesocialsciencesandnotto existin plants;in his view,such workerswouldotherwisebe
manynonmodemcontexts.Thus in boththenonmod- idle in theslumsofa nearbytown,whichhas doubled
ernand thepostmodern domainwe findnatureand so- its populationin scarcelya decade,from 0o,oooto
cietyabsentconceptually, andtheattemptto construct Ioo,ooo.This capitalistis oursecondactor.
an analysisthatdoes not relyon thesecategorieshas Not farfromtheplantation is an indigenous territory
politicaland epistemological dimensions. that has recentlyreceiveda strangevisitor,already
Definedas thearticulation ofbiologyandhistory, po- knownin otherplacesas a biodiversity prospector. She
liticalecologyexaminesthemanifold practicesthrough has cometo theregion, perhapssentbya botanicalgar-
whichthebiophysicalhas been incorporated intohis- den in theUnitedStatesor Europe,perhapsbya phar-
tory-moreaccurately, in whichthe biophysicaland maceuticalcompany,in searchof plantswithpoten-
thehistorical areimplicated witheachother.Examples tiallyusefulcommercialapplications.She is in fact
rangefromthosethatcan be gleanedfromtheprehis- interested notin theplantitselfbutin itsgenes,which
toricpast to the most contemporary and futuristic- shewill takebackto herhomecountry. Letus imagine
fromancientarticulations through agriculture and for- thatthesegeneseventually endup beingusedtomodify
estryto moleculartechnologies and artificial
life,ifwe hiumans in wavs that make them resistant to certain
understand thislatteras a particular representation of
the biology/history relation.Each articulation has its 4. My researchin thisareaincludesi 8 monthsoffieldwork (Janu-
history andspecificityandis relatedtomodesofpercep- ary 1993 -January I994; Summers 1994,I996, 1997) and a contin-
tion and experience,determined by social, political, uous engagement withblackmovementactivists, biodiversitycon-
servationand developmentplanners,and the growingscholarly
economic,and knowledgerelations,and characterizednetworkfocusedon the region.Verybriefly,the Pacificcoast re-
bymodesofuse ofspace,ecologicalconditions, andthe gionextendsfromPanamain thenorthto Ecuadorin thesouthand
like. It will be the taskofpoliticalecologyto outline fromthewesternmost chainoftheAndesto theocean.The region
and characterize theseprocessesofarticulation and its has one of the highestlevels ofbiologicaldiversityin the world.
goal to suggestpotentialarticulations realizabletoday About 6o% of the region'sgoo,ooo inhabitants(8oo,ooo Afro-
Colombians,So,oooEmbera,Waunana,and otherindigenouspeo-
and conduciveto morejustand sustainablesocial and ple,and mestizo colonists)livein thefewlargetowns,therestin-
ecologicalrelations. Another wayto statethisgoalis to habitingthebanksofthe morethan240 riversofthe area. Black
saythatpoliticalecologyis cotleemed withfinding new and indigenouspeoplehave maintaineddistinctmaterialand cul-
waysofweavingtogether thebiophysical, thecultural, turalpractices,such as multiplesubsistenceand economicactivi-
and the technoeconomic forthe productionof other ties involvingagriculture,fishing, hunting,gathering,and small-
scale gold miningand timbercollection.Conventionaldevelop-
typesofsocialnature. mentand capitalistactivities(African palm,timber,goldmining,
shrimpcultivation,tourism)have increasedgreatlysince the
I980s. The new Colombianconstitution of I99I grantedcultural
and territorial
rightsto theblackcommunities; a significant black
AntiessentialistPolitical Ecology: Regimes movementof ethnocultural and ecologicalorientationhas been
growingas an attemptto defendtheregionfromdevelopment and
of Nature capitalistintrusionand to pressforthe demarcationor titlingof
collectiveterritories.
Forgeneralbackground and ethnographic in-
To facilitate
thetaskofvisualizingthespanofarticula- formation, see Escobarand Pedrosa(II996);on ethnographic treat-
mentof biodiversity conservation,see Escobar(1997, I998a); on
tionsofthebiologicalandthehistorical, letus conduct the region'sblack movement,see Grueso,Rosero,and Escobar
a briefimaginationexercise.Letus situateourselvesin (II998).The blackmovement'spoliticalecologyis discussedin Es-
a tropicalrain-forest
area such as the PacificCoast of cobar (II998a).
 ESCOBAR AfterNature IS

diseases,to producetransgenic organisms or products, First,thisis an antiessentialist model.It is well ac-

orperhapseventocreatean entiretropicalenvironmentceptedalreadythatnatureis differently experienced ac-
in a northern latitudeout ofa collectionofgenesfrom cordingto one's socialpositionandthatit is differently
manytropicalforests-whether in actualbiologicalor producedby different groupsor in different historical
virtualform.Thisis thethirdandfinalactorin thenar- periods.Theseassertions, however, implya modemor-
rativeofnaturewe wantto construct.5 der in which experiencecan be gaugedaccordingto
Finally,let us now situateourselvesin the space of modemformsofproduction and social relations.They
perceptionof an activistof the social movementof do notallowa theorization oftheradicalalterity in the
blackcommunities thathas emergedin thisregionas a socialformsofnature.The natureregimescan be seen
resultofthemanychangesthathavetakenplacethere, as constituting a structured social totalitymadeup of
includingthearrivalofthecapitalist,thedevelopment multipleand irreducible relations, withouta centeror
planner,and theprospector. This activistgrewup in a origin,thatis, a fieldofarticulations (Gibson-Graham
rivercommunity and migrated to one ofthebig cities i996:29); thereis a doublearticulation, withineach re-
in the Andeanpartof the countryin searchof educa- gimeandbetweenoneandanother. The identity ofeach
tion;she is now back organizing forthedefenseofthe regimeis the resultof discursivearticulations-with
culturalandbiophysical landscapesofherregion(many biological,social, and culturalcouplings-thattake
activistsarein factwomen).Ifwe takea stepbackand place in an overallfieldofdiscursivity widerthanany
lookat whatsheis doing,we can saythatsheis holding particularregime(Laclau and Mouffei985).7
variouslandscapes, variousnaturesin tension:foremost Second,thethreeregimesdo notrepresent a linearse-
in hermindis thelandscapeofforest andriversandset- quenceorseriesofstagesin thehistory ofsocialnature.
tlementsofherchildhood,populatedwithall kindsof They coexistand overlap.Moreover,theyco-produce
beings,fromthe beautifulcoconutand naidi6 palm each other;like culturesand identities, theyare rela-
treesto the visionsand spiritualbeingsthatpopulate tional.Whatmattersis examining theirmutualarticu-
theunder-andsupraworlds. Ifsheis in herearlytwent- lationsandcontradictions-the waysin whichtheyvie
ies, perhapsshe also grewup alongsideof the disci- forcontrolofthesocial and thebiological.Humansin
plinedlandscapeoftheplantations. As an activist,she thesethreeregimesare differently located,have differ-
has becomeawareofthediscourseofbiodiversity and ent conceptualizations, and place differentiated de-
ofthefactthatherregionis in themireofinternationalmandson thebiological.Whattheylocatein biologyor
organizations, Northern environmental NGOs, multi- in historyvaries;said differently, theybringdifferent
nationalcorporations, and thegovernment ofherown histories intothebiological,and,conversely, thebiolog-
country,all intenton havingaccesstotheallegedlyrich ical takesdifferent formsand possibilitiesin each (al-
geneticresourcesoftheregion. thoughat some level natureis "always the same"?).
Social movementactivists-alongwithall of us in The threeregimesare thus the subjectof tensions
ourownwaysandwithdifferent naturesin mind-have and contestations; biophysicallaws, meanings,labor,
to hold thesevariouslandscapesin tension-the "or- knowledge, andidentities areimportant, althoughwith
ganic" landscapeof the communities,the capitalist diverging intensitiesand configurations, in all ofthem.
landscapeoftheplantations, andthetechnoscape ofthe The regimesrepresent actual or potentialapparatuses
biodiversity and biotechnology researchers and entre- fortheproduction ofthesocialandthebiological.They
preneurs. At theriskofoversimplification and rigidity, couldbe seenas momentsin theoverallanddifferenti-
I wantto suggestthatthethreeactorsjustsketchedem- atedproduction ofsocial-biological nature.Finally,it is
bodysignificantly different regimesof articulationof important to say fromthe outsetthatthe organicre-
thehistoricalandthebiological.I willrefer to thesere- gimeis not essentialbut historical;it does not corre-
gimesas organicnature,capitalistnature,and techno- spondto "thenatural";it is notstableorsettled,andit
naturerespectively. I retaintheterm"nature"because is as constructed andconnectedto otherassemblagesas
of our historicalproximity to the modemregime,for capitalistand techno-natures.Organicnaturedoesnot
whichnatureis a dominantcategory. In whatfollows, reston a wholesomeculturalframework-although it
I wouldlike to lay downtherudiments ofa character- is characterizedbya moreintegral connection between
izationofeachoftheseregimes, butit is firstnecessary cultureand biology-butrelieson reassemblages and
to make some generaland cautionaryobservations recombinations oforganisms andpractices, albeitsome-
aboutthemodelto clarify its character.
7. The natureregimescan also be likenedto a fractaltotality,in
thesensein whichPaul Gilroy(I993) speaksoftheblackAtlantic
conservation
S. I do notmeanto reducethebiodiversity movement as a fractalstructurewhereinmanyidentities,politicalcultures,
prospecting;
to biodiversity thisentireexerciseis onlysuggestive and culturalpoliticscoexist.A fractalstructurehas no beginning
ofcertaintrendsand possibilities. or end but is alwaysin fluxbetweenstatesthatare different yet
6. The tipsofthesetreesareused to producethe"heartsofpalm" similarto each other,accordingto a ceaselessrecursivity.Fractal
thataresoldin supermarkets ofwealthycountriesin cannedform. theories-liketheoriesofarticulation-offer a visionofa totality
The entirepalmis usuallycutdownforthispurpose.Attempts are withoutbeingtotalizing.It can be said thatthevariousregimesof
underway in some partsofthe Pacificregionto establishplanta- natureproductioncreatea fractalecology.Finally,the antiessen-
tionsofa differentspeciesforcommercialproduction, butthenat- tialistmodelof natureregimescan be relatedto Polanyi'sproto-
urallyoccurringnaidi,whichdoes not reproduceeasily,has been antiessentialistmodeloftheeconomyas instituted process(1957)
decimated. and to Foucault's(1973) notionofepistemes.
6 | CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume40, Numberi, FebruaryI999

timesincongruent withthosecharacteristic ofmodem and thecamerain the i9th century to satellitesurveil-

capitalistnature. lance,GIS,andsonography, theimportance ofvisionin
Third,theknowledge we haveat ourdisposalforex- ourtreatment ofnatureand ourselveshas onlygrown.
aminingeachregimeis unevenanddifferentiated. I pro- Butthemostfundamental featureofmodernity in this
pose to approacheach regimefromthe perspective of regardis whatHeidegger(I977)has calledthecreation
theparticular formofknowledge thatseemsbestsuited of"a worldpicture"withinwhichnatureis inevitably
to its study.I will suggestthatwe can moreappropri- enframed, thatis, orderedas a resourceforus to use as
atelystudyorganicnaturethrough theanthropology of we wish.WiththeFrankfurt school,thedomination of
local knowledge, capitalistnaturein termsofhistorical naturebecameone ofthequintessential features ofin-
materialism, and technonature fromtheperspective of strumental an aspect thathas been high-
rationality,
science-and-technology studies.These frameworks are lightedfromfeministand ecologicalperspectives by
regime-specific modesof analysisbecause of theiraf- various writers(Merchant i980, Shiva I993). As Fou-
finities, commitments, and theoretical orientations. A cault (I973)vividlyshowed,all ofthesedevelopments
finalcorollary ofthesequalifications is thatthemodel areaspectsoftheemergence of"Man" as an anthropo-
is builtfroma certainpartialperspective, thatof the logical structureand the foundationof all possible
critical,antiessentialist politicalecologistbound by knowledge. Witheconomics,"Man" becameentrapped
historyto modemcapitalistnaturebut attempting to in an "analyticoffinitude," a culturalorderin which
visualizea discourseofdifference in whichorganicand we are forever condemnedto laborunderthe ironlaw
techno-naturescan becomevisiblein all of theiral- ofscarcity. This separation ofnatureand societyis one
terity andin whichalternative discoursesofnatureand ofthebasicfeatures ofmodemsocieties-although, in
culturecan be cultivated.8 actuality,as Latour(I993) argues,the dividehas only
madepossibletheproliferation ofhybrids ofnatureand
CAPITALIST NATURE: PRODUCTION AND
cultureand of networks linking them in multiple ways.
MODERNITY
The history ofMan and of bourgeois perception is re-
latedto otherfactorssuch as the colonizationoftime
The regimewe knowbest is capitalistnature,which (Landesi983), thedevelopment ofmapsand statistics,
emergedin post-Renaissance Europeand crystallized and the associationof particularlandscapeswithna-
withcapitalismandtheadventofthemodemepistemic tionalidentities.More pertinent, capitalistmodernity
orderin thelate i8th century. A numberofits aspects requiredthedevelopment ofrationalformsofmanage-
willbe reviewedhereunderfourrubrics-newwaysof mentofresourcesand populationsbasedon theexpert
seeing,rationality, governmentality, andthecommodi- knowledgeof planners,statisticians, economists,de-
ficationofnaturelinkedto capitalistmodernity. mographers, and the like-what Foucault(i9i) has
The development ofnewwaysofseeinghas beendi- called "governmentality." Governmentality is a quin-
rectlylinkedto theemergence ofcapitalistnature:the tessentiallymodem phenomenonby which increas-
inventionoflinearperspective, linkedto realistpaint- inglyvast domainsof dailylifeare appropriated, pro-
ing(freezing place froma particular pointofview and cessed,and transformed by expertknowledgeand the
locatingthevieweroutsideofthepictureand thusout- administrative apparatusesof the state.This process
side ofnatureand history); theobjectification of land- has reachedthe naturalorderfromscientificforestry
scape as vista with a concomitantpoliticsof vision andplantation agricultureto themanagerialism ofsus-
(ThomasI993); an equationof consciousnesswithvi- tainabledevelopment. The ways in whichnaturehas
sion-a scopicregime(Jayi988)-and theinitiationof been governmentalized-made the object of expert
surveillance andmonitoring on a largescale (Foucault's knowledge,regularized,simplifiedand disciplined,
[I9791panopticism); and a totalizingmale gaze which managed,planned for, etc.-are still understudied
objectifieslandscapeand women in particularways (Brosius I997).
(Harawayi988, Fordi99i). Withlandscapeart,nature Mostoftheattention ofthoseseekingto understand
tookon -apassiverole,deprivedof agencyundera to- capitalistnaturehas beenoccupiedbytheexamination
talizingperspective thatcreated-the impression ofunity ofnatureas commodity. The articulation ofbiologyand
and control. historyin capitalistnaturetakesthe primary formof
In a morephilosophicalvein,thisgaze was instru- the commodity, and analysesat thislevel have aimed
mentalin thebirthofthemodernsciences;thedevelop- at explainingthe production of natureas commodity
mentofclinicalmedicine,in openingup thecorpsefor through themediationoflabor.Froma Marxistperspec-
observation at theendofthe i8th century, established tivetheseparation ofnatureandsocietyis seenas ideo-
an alliance"betweenwordsandthings,enablingone to logical;the unityof capitalentailsthe fusionof use
see andtosay,"thusintegrating theindividual(andthe value and exchangevalue in theproduction ofnature.
biological) into rational discourse (Foucault I975:xii). Historically,the productionof surpluswith the con-
Fromthe analysisof tissuesthroughthe microscope comitantsocial and institutionaldifferentiation al-
lowedhumansto emancipatethemselvesfromnature,
8. Partialperspective
andstandpointepistemology arewell-known albeitat thepriceof enslavingpartof the population.
principlesintroducedby feministcriticsof science,particularly With capitalismthe productionof naturereacheda
Donna Harawayand SandraHardin. higher,societallevel.Throughthemediationoflabor,
 ESCOBAR AfterNature | 7

"society"emergedfrom"nature,"resulting in thepro. As a provisionalconclusion,I wantto suggesta par-

duction of what has been called a second nature tial definition of thepoliticalecologyof capitalistna-
namely,theensembleofsocialinstitutions whichregu. tureas thestudyoftheprogressive incorporationofna-
late the exchangeof commodities, includingthe na. tureintothetwindomainsofgovemmentality and the
ture(s)producedbyhumans.Naturebecamea universal commodity. Bothaspectshavebiological,cultural,and
meansofproduction. Withthedevelopment ofscience social consequencesthatneed to be examinedmore
and machines,natureand societyachieveda unityir carefully. It is now time,however,to moveon to the
thegeneralized production brought aboutbycapitalism organicregime.Fromthe perspective of capitalistna-
The verydistinction betweenfirstand secondnature ture,thisregimemayseema case ofecologicalatavism
becameobsoleteonce theproduction ofnaturehad be. ora local manifestation ofuniversalnatureandits cul-
comethedominantreality.Capitalistnaturebecamea tural and symbolicmechanismsnature idolatryor
hegemonicregime(SmithI984).9 primitivism. However,the naturesof the local native
All ofthefactorsoutlinedso fararea productofa par. communities cannotbe reducedto inferior manifesta-
ticularphase of history-patriarchal capitalistmoder. tionsofcapitalistnature,norcan theybe saidtobe pro-
nity.RecentMarxist-inspired writings havegonea long ducedonlyaccording to capitalistlaws.
way towardsconceptualizing this regimein both its
classicaland currentformsand its relationto capital. ORGANIC NATURE: CULTURE AND LOCAL
ismas a whole(Smithi984, J.O'Connori988, Harawa) KNOWLED GE
i989, Leffi995). It is notthepointhereto summarize
these developmentsor theirecologicalimplications, Understanding theregimeoforganicnaturecallsfordif-
whichrepresent one ofthemostactivesitesofworkor ferentformsof analysis;ecosystemsand production
the questionofnaturetoday(butsee Escobari996). II analysesareno longersufficient." One defining feature
is important, however, to highlightone aspectthatwill ofthisregimeis thefactthatnatureandsocietyarenot
be important forourexplanation oftechnonature. Capi. separatedontologically. Anthropological andecological
talistnatureis uniform, legible,manageable,harvest- studiesdemonstrate thatmanyruralcommunitiesin
able,Fordist.The accumulation ofuniform natureis be. theThirdWorld"construct" naturein strikingly differ-
comingan obstacleto capitalaccumulationforboth entwaysfrommodemforms;theysignify anduse their
socialand ecologicalreasons.'0It is therefore necessary naturalenvironments in veryparticular ways.Forpur-
to startthe processof accumulationof diversenature posesofargument I willreferto theanthropological lit-
(or"flexiblenature,"ifwe acceptthatdiversity in the eratureon the subjectas the "anthropology of local
biologicaldomainis somewhatisomorphic withflexi. knowledge,"althoughit is by no meansrestricted to
bilityin thesocial domain).The discoursesofsustain. suchknowledge.'2 Whatis certainis thatthereis an in-
able development and biodiversity conservation are a credibleferment of activityin thisarea; whetherthis
reflection ofthistendency, andso is theargument thai amountsto theemergence ofa "newecologicalanthro-
capitalismis entering an ecologicalphasein whichits pology"(KottakI997) or to a refounding of ecological
modem,recklessformwill coexistwitha postmodem anthropology on a surerfooting(Descola and Pailsson
conservationist one (M. O'ConnorI993 and,fordiscus i996) remainsto be seen.
sion. Escobar ioo6). In a classicarticleon thesubject,MarilynStrathem
9. See Smith'spioneeringwork(II984:54-55):"Once the relation
withnatureis determined bythelogicofexchangevalue,and first i i. I am aware thatthe label "organic"is problematic,givenits
natureis producedfromwithinand as partofsecondnature,first associationwith termssuch as "purity,""wholeness,""time-
and secondnatureare themselvesredefined. Withproductionfor lessness,"etc.Whileforestpeoplesin particular havebeenseenas
exchange,thedifference betweenfirstand secondnatureis simply quintessentially organicand embeddedin nature,I suggestthatit
the difference between the non-humanand humanlycreated is possibleto launcha defenseoftheorganicas a historicalregime
worlds.This distinction ceases to haverealmeaningonce thefirst andtouse itas a pointofsupportfortheoryconstruction andpoliti-
natureis too produced.Rather,the distinctionis now betweena cal action.An antiessentialist notionoftheorganiccan serveas a
firstnaturethatis concreteand material,thenatureofuse-values counterpoint to theessentialistand at timescolonialistemphasis
in general,anda secondnaturewhichis abstract, and derivativeof on wholenessand purityofmuchenvironmental discourse.I will
theabstraction fromuse-valuethatis inherent in exchange-value." explainthemeaningof"organic"morefullybelow.
io. This is anotherside ofwhatJamesO'Connor(II988)has called I2. Again,it is impossibleto list the pertinent which
literature,
the"secondcontradiction" ofcapitalism.Accordingto thisthesis, growsout of earlierconcernsin ethnobotany, ethnoscience,and
capitalistrestructuringtodaytakesplace chieflyat theexpenseof ecologicalanthropology. Strathern'swork(I980, I988, 1992a, b)
"production conditions"(labor,land,nature,space,thebody,that constitutesthemostsystematicattemptin anthropology at theo-
is,thoseelementsofproduction thatarenotproducedas commodi- rizingnatureas locallyproduced,whetherin nonmodemor post-
tiesalthoughtheyare treatedas such).Drivenbycompetition and modem("post-nature") settings. discussionsofcul-
State-of-the-art
costshifting amongindividualcapitals,thisrestructuring signifies turalmodelsofnaturearefoundin Descola and Pilsson (II996)and
a deepeningofcapital'sencroachment on natureand labor,an ag- Gudemanand Rivera(II990).Fora recentand usefulassessmentof
gravation oftheecologicalcrisis,anda further impairment ofcapi- ecosystems-inspired anthropological analyses,see Moran (1990).
tal's conditionsofproduction and thereproduction ofthesecondi- Debates on ethnobiology are summarizedin Berlin(1992). Struc-
tions.The restructuring is contradictoryforcapital,whichseeksto tural-oriented analyses are best exemplifiedby Descola (1992,
overcomethisdynamicthrough a varietyofmeasuresthatsimply 1994), landscapeethnography by Lansing(issi), Bender(I993b),
displacethecontradiction ontootherterrains.An activedebateon and Tilley (I994). The anthropology of local knowledgeproperis
thisthesishas beenmaintainedin thejournalCapitalism,Nature, advancedmostcogentlyin Hobart(I993), Milton(I993), and Des-
Socialismsince thelate I98os. cola and Pilsson (II996).
8 | CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume40, Numberi, Februaryi999

(i980) made it clear thatwe cannotinterpret native A local model of the naturalmay exhibitfeatures
(nonmodem) mappingsofthe social and thebiological such as the following, whichmay or may not corre-
in termsofourconceptsofnature,culture,andsociety. spondto the parameters of capitalistnature:specific
Amongthe Hagen of the highlandsof Papua New categorizationsofhuman,social,andbiologicalentities
Guinea,as amongmanyindigenousand ruralgroups, (forinstance,ofwhatis humanand whatis not,what
"'culture'does not providea distinctive
set ofobjects is plantedand whatis not,thedomesticand thewild,
with which one manipulates 'nature.' . . . natureis not whatis innateand whatemergesfromhumanaction,
'manipulated"'(pp. I74, I75). These dichotomiesare etc.),boundarysettings, and systematic classifications
imposedontoothersocialordersbecauseofourparticu- of animals,spirits,and plants.It may also contain
lar interests,amongthesethe controlof the environ- mechanisms formaintaining goodorderandbalancein
ment."Nature"and"culture"thusneedtobe analyzed thebiophysical, human,and spiritualcircuits(Descola
notas givenandpresocialbutas constructs ifwe want I992, I994) ora circularviewofbiologicalandsocioeco-
to ascertainhow theyfunctionas devicesforcultural nomiclifeultimately grounded in Providence, gods,or
creationsfromhumanbeliefsto genderand the econ- goddesses(Gudemanand Riverai990). Theremayalso
omy(MacCormack. and Strathern i980). be a theoryof how all beings in the universeare
From the perspectiveof an anthropology of local "raised"or "nurtured" out ofsimilarprinciples, since
knowledge, then,therearequestionssuchas howother in manynonmodemculturestheentireuniverseis con-
societiesrepresent the relationbetweentheirhuman ceivedas a livingbeingwithno strictseparationbe-
andbiologicalworlds,whatdistinctions and classifica- tweenhumansand nature,individualand community,
tionsofthebiologicaltheymake,inwhatlanguages(in- community and the gods (Grilloi99i, Apffel-Marglin
cludingoraltraditions, myths, andrituals)theyexpress andValladolidI995).
suchdistinctions, through whatpracticessuchdistinc- Althoughthe specificformulaeforarranging all of
tionsare effected,whetherthereis a place for"human thesefactorsvarygreatlyfromone nativeor peasant
nature"in nativerepresentations and cognitivemaps, groupto another,theytendto have certainfeatures in
andwhattherelationship is betweenculturalconstruc- common:theyreveala compleximageofsociallifethat
tionsand production relationsand betweenmeanings is notnecessarily opposedtonature(inotherwords,one
anduses ofbiologicalentities.In a morepoliticalvein, in which the naturalworldis integralto the social
one may ask how local constructions relateto our world)andwhichcan be thought aboutin termsofhu-
present-day concerns,particularly sustainability, and man relationssuch as kinship,extendedfamilies,and
whethertherearenotionsakinto management or con- vernacularor analogicgender.Local modelsalso evi-
trolin nativerepresentations and local modelsof na- dencea particular attachment to a territoryconceived
ture. as a multidimensional entitythatresultsfrommany
Thereare alreadysome answersto thesequestions, typesofpracticesandrelations. Theyestablishlinksbe-
mostlyin theformofcase studiesin nonindustrializedtween worlds (biological,human, spiritual;bodies,
societies.Thereis, of course,no unifiedview of just souls,and objects)whichsome have interpreted as "a
whatcharacterizes local modelsofnature.Perhapsthe vastcommunity oflivingenergy" (Descola I992:II7) or
mostwell-established featuretodayis thatthecultural as a theoryofall beings(humanandnot)as perpetually
modelsofnatureofmanysocietiesdo notrelyon a na- reborn(see Restrepoand del Valle i996 foran Afro-
ture-society (or culture)dichotomy.Unlike modem Colombianmodelof perpetualrebirthon the Pacific
constructions, withtheirstrictseparation betweenthe coast). Ritual is oftenintegralto the interaction be-
biophysical,human,andsupernatural worlds,it is com- tweenthehumanandnaturalworlds.An activitysuch
monlyappreciated nowthatlocal modelsin non-West- as clearingtheforestforplantingmaybe seenas bring-
em contextsare oftenpredicatedon links between ingtogether villagers,spirits,ancestors,and the crops
thesethreedomains.Thiscontinuity-which maynev- themselves ortheircorresponding godsorgoddesses.In
erthelessbe experienced as problematic oruncertain cases suchas these,therelationship betweensymbolic
is culturallyestablishedthroughritualsand practices systemsand productiverelationscan be highlycom-
andembeddedin socialrelationsdifferent fromcapital- plex,as Lansing(i99i) showsin detailin his studyof
istormodemones.Thusliving,nonliving, andoftensu- the systemof watertemplesthat regulatethe engi-
pernatural beingsdo not constitutedistinctand sepa- neeredlandscapesofBali.Riceterraces reflecta biologi-
ratedomains-certainly nottwospheresofnatureand cal viewoftimeandresultfromthecooperation ofhun-
culture.Descola,forinstance,arguesthat"in such'so- dreds of farmersunder the managementof these
cietiesofnature'plantsand animalsand otherentities temples.Herewe have symbolically mediatedproduc-
belongto a socioeconomic community, subjectedto the
same niles a huimains" ITOOQQTA I 13

per-natural,
ornon-empirical. On thecontrary, theyareworldsthat
13. As faras the supernatural
is concerned,even whenthereare enterexperienceand ofwhichdirectexperienceis had. Theyare,
wildspiritsat worktheaim is less to dominatethemthanto come so to speak,dimensionsofthelifeworld notordinarily
brought into
to termswiththemso thathumanactivitycan takeplace (Strath. consciousness,but theyare integrally partof empiricalreality"
ernI980). Indeed,"none ofthesedistinctionsimpliesthatthedo. (Jacksoni996:15; see also Biersack1997). Theyareequallyintegral
mainsofdarkness,wilderness, orDreamingare other-worldly,su. to manyculturalmodelsofnaturethroughout theworld.
 ESCOBAR AfterNature I 9

tion relationsthat cannotbe understoodin conven- inspired bya varietyofpositionsfromBourdieuto Gid-

tionalterms,Marxistor other.'4 dens-is an excitingand complexdevelopment. A re-
The idea of identifying the mechanismsunderlyinglated trendemphasizesthe embodiedaspectof local
various models and the commensurability of those knowledge,appealingto philosophicalprinciplesout-
modelsareimportant issueswithconsequencesforpo- linedby Heidegger, Dewey,Marx,and Merleau-Ponty.
liticalecology:"Must we restrict ourselvesto describ- For Ingold (i995, i996), the most ardentand articulate
ing as best we can the specificconceptionsof nature ofthesescholars,we dwellin a worldthatis notsepa-
thatdifferent cultureshaveproducedat different times, ratefromus, and ourknowledgeofit can be described
ormustwe lookforgeneralprinciples oforderenabling as a processof enskillmentin practicalengagement
us to comparethe seeminglyinfiniteempiricaldiver- withthe environment. Humansare embeddedin the
sityof nature-culture complexes?"(Descola i996:84). worldand engagedin situatedpracticalacts.ForRich-
The questiondates back to debatesin ethnobiologyards (I993), local agriculturalknowledgemust be seen
(summarized in BerlinI992) concerning theuniversal- as a set of context-speoific improvisational capacities
ityoftaxonomicstructures arisingfroman underlyingratherthan as constituting a coherent"indigenous
"map of nature."Symbolically mindedecologicalan- knowledgesystem"as earlierliteratureproclaimed.
thropologistshaveresponded totherestricted ethnobio- Thisnotionfindsan echoin theanthropology ofexperi-
logicalconcernwithfolktaxonomies bydisplacing clas- ence,forwhich"use,notlogic,conditions belief"(Jack-
sificationfromits place ofprivilege, arguingthatit is son I996: I2).16
butone aspectoftheprocessbywhichhumansendow These welcometrendsdo not answerall the ques-
featuresofthenaturalenvironment withsignificance. tionsregarding thenatureandmodesofoperation oflo-
These anthropologists are unwilling,however,to give cal knowledge.Whetherall knowledgeis embodied,
up the idea of underlying mechanismsor structuringwhetherembodiedknowledgecan be seenas formalor
procedures("schemataof praxis"forDescola 1i9961, abstractin any way,whetherit is organizedin ways
cognitiveaxes forEllen [i9961)thatorganizehuman- thatcontrast withorresemblescientific discourse,and
environment relations.'5 whether thereis a continuousorsporadicshiftbetween
Thesedebatesarebeyondthescopeofthispaper,but practicalknowledgeand theoretical/formal knowledge
it is importantto addressa closelyrelatedissue,thatof thatarisesfromsystematic on experience
reflection are
local knowledge, beforeconcludingthissection.There all open questions. Gudeman and Rivera (i990) have
is a certainconvergence in anthropology (still being suggested thatpeasantsmaypossessa "local model"of
workedout)on thetreatment ofknowingas "a practi- land,economy,andproduction thatis significantlydif-
cal, situatedactivity,constituted by a past,but chang- ferentfrommodemmodelsand thatexistschieflyin
ing,historyof practices"(HobartI993:I7; see Ingold practice.Local modelsofthissortare "experiments in
1996). Thispractice-oriented viewoflocal knowledge- living";theyare"developedthrough use" in theimbri-
cationoflocal practiceswithlargerprocessesand con-
14. The social relationsthatunderlielocal modelsare oftencon- versations(I990:I4). This proposalsuggeststhatwe can
flictual-forinstance,in genderand age terms(Biersack1997). Or- treatpractical,embodiedknowledgeas constituting a
ganicregimesdo notsupposea socialorecologicalGardenofEden. somewhatcomprehensive modeloftheworld.
The notionofthings'beingperpetually rebornamongsome black The consequencesofthisrethinking oflocal knowl-
peopleoftheColombianPacificcoast,forinstance,has beenused
bynativesto legitimate-underthepressureofcapitalistforces edgeand culturalmodels areenormous. While thereis a
Dahl (I993:6) summarizeswell ourstate danger
a fasterrateoftreefelling. ofreinscribinglocal knowledge intohierarchical
of knowledgein this respect:"All people of necessitymaintain constellations ofknowledge forms, thedeval-
recasting
ideas about,and of necessityact on, theirnaturalenvironment. uationand subordination of local knowledgethathas
This does notnecessarilymeanthatthosewho live as directpro- characterized muchdiscussionon the subject(includ-
ducershavegreatsystematic althoughon thewholesub-
insights,
sistenceproducershave detailedknowledgeabouttheworkingof ing biodiversity conservationdebates),the displace-
manysmallaspectsoftheirbiologicalenvironment. Much ofthis ment effected by this ethnographically orientedre-
knowledgehas fromexperienceprovedtrueand efficient, some is thinkingis hopefulin a varietyof ways. The new
misconceivedand counterproductive, and some is incorrectbut thinking helpsto debunkthenature/culture dichotomy
stillfunctions well enough."Forsome,local modelsofnaturere-
veal a certaindegreeofself-consciousnessandobjectification
ofna- thatis fundamental to thedominance of expertknowl-
ture,includingmechanismsof managementand control-say,of edge; accordingly, the commonview of distinctdo-
local faunaor crops(Descola 1992). mains of natureand culturethatcan be knownand
IS. In reviewingAtran's work (I990), Bloch (I996) has recentlysug- managedseparatelyfromeach otheris no longerten-
gestedthatit is lifeitself(andnot,say,"nature"oressentialliving able.
typesandranks)thatis seenas a shared,unchanging, andessential
feature.He specifiesthreerequirements foradequateexplanations Similarradical lesonnscranhe drawnfromthe reinter-
ofconstructions ofnature:" I) constraintscomingfromthenatural
worldas it is and as it presentsitselfas an opportunity forhuman i6. We needto ponderthereasonsforthisforceful-andgenerally
productiontogetherwith z) the particularculturalhistoryof welcome-comebackofphenomenological approachesin ecologi-
groupsor individuals,and 3) thenatureofhumanpsychology" (p. cal anthropologyand otherfields.It is likelyrelatedto theforms
3). It is Bloch'sbeliefthatpsychologists, ethnobiologists,
and an- ofdenaturalization
ofbodyandlifebynewtechnologies andto eco-
thropologists are farfromhavingsettledthequestionofcognition logicaland culturalcrisesmoregenerally.This trendneedsto be
ofthenaturalworld,despiteimportant stridesin thisdirection. moreexplicitlypoliticized.
10I CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume40, Numberi, Februaryi999

pretationofcognitionfoundin a relatedtrendthathas to grounds,boundaries,and local culture.They are

yetto be incorporatedintoanthropology, namely,the based on historical,linguistic,and culturalprocesses
phenomenologicalbiology of HumbertoMaturana, thatwithoutbeingisolatedfrombroaderhistoriesnev-
FranciscoVarela,and co-workers.Briefly,thesebiolo- ertheless retaina certainplace-basedspecificity. Ethno-
gistssuggestthatcognitionis nottheprocessofbuild- graphically, the documentation of theseensemblesof
of a pregivenworldby a pregiven
ing representations meanings/uses shouldbe situatedin thelargercontexts
mindexternalto thatworldbut embodiedexperience ofpowerandarticulation withothernatureregimesand
thattakesplacein a historical
backgroundandmustbe globalforcesmoregenerally. This is a stepthatecologi-
theorizedfromtheperspective ofthe"unbroken coinci- cal anthropologists haveshiedawayfromuntilnowbut
denceofourbeing,our doing,and our knowing"(Ma- thatpoliticalecologistsare tackling.Local modelsare
turana and Varela i987:25). In what they call an en- incontactwithandinfluenced bymodemmodelsofna-
activeapproach, cognition becomestheenactment ofa tureand economy (Escobar igg8b).
relationbetweenmindand worldbasedon thehistory A finalwordaboutthe conceptof"organicnature":
of theirinteraction. "Minds awakenin a world,"say In proposing a new relationbetweenanthropology and
Varela, Thompson,.and Rosch (I99I:3), suggestingour biologybyreembedding theanthropology ofpersonsin
ineluctabledoubleembodiment (a concepttheyborrow a post-Darwinianbiology of organisms,Ingold (i990)
fromMerleau-Ponty)-that ofthebodyas lived,experi- highlights theneedfora relationalviewofbothorganic
entialstructure and as the contextof cognition-and andsociallife.Organiclifeoriginates andis maintained
pointingto thefactthateveryact ofknowledgebrings because of a perpetualinterchange with its environ-
fortha world.This constitutive circularityof knowl- ment.The formation of an organismand the environ-
edgeandexistenceis notwithoutconsequencesforthe mentare one and the same, and lifecuts acrossthe
investigationof local modelsofnature(Maturanaand boundary betweenthetwo.Personsdevelopin a nexus
Varela i987:24I-44): ofrelationswiththeenvironment and withotherper-
sons, and therefore becominga personis integralto
ourexperience-thepraxisofourliving-is coupled becomingan organism, all ofwhichoccurswithina re-
to a surrounding worldwhichappearsfilledwith lationalfield.This view is verydifferent fromthe ge-
regularitiesthatareat everyinstanttheresultof netic-based neo-Darwinian theory ofdiversity orthean-
our biological and social histories.... The whole thropological view ofculturaldiversity basedon traits
kitbag ofregularities properto thecouplingofa so- (it is also different, one mightadd, fromLatour's [I993]
cial groupis itsbiologicaland culturaltradition.... conceptofthe"short"networks linkingnatureandcul-
[Our]commonbiologicalheritageis thebasis for turein premodern societies).Ingold'sproposalseeksto
theworldthatwe humanbeingsbringforthto- freeour thinking from"the conceptualstraitjacket of
getherthrough congruent distinctions ... thiscom- genes, culture,and behavior" (p. 22I). His provocative
monbiologicalheritageallowsa divergence ofcul- reconceptualization of the relationbetweenbiological
turalworldsbrought forththrough theconstitutions andculturallifecanbe showntobe closelyalignedwith
ofwhatcan becomewidelydifferent culturaltradi- Maturanaand Varela'sdeeplyhistoricized view ofbio-
tions. logical life and evolutionin termsof the organism's
structural couplingto the environment withmainte-
In refusingto separateknowingfromdoingandthese nanceofautopoiesis.Moreimportant forourargument,
frombeing,thesebiologistsprovideus witha language it can be linkedto theworksalreadyreviewedthatdis-
withwhichto questionthedualismsand asymmetriessolvethebinarisms andboundaries betweennatureand
ofnatureandculture,theory andpractice;theycorrobo- culture,mindand world.It is in thissense thatI use
ratethe ethnographic arguments aboutthe continuity theterm"organic";it suggestsa typeofprocessandre-
of natureand culture,the embodiedaspectof knowl- lationality thatsees sociallife"in topologicalterms,as
edge,and the ideas ofenskillment and performativity. theunfolding ofa totalgenerative field"(Ingoldi990:
Concepts-of-performativity, enskillment, practice-based223). This fieldis at once culturaland biological.
models,and enactmentdo not,-ofcourse,exhaustthe This conceptionoftheorganicenablesa correspond-
domainof"local knowledge," and theywill haveto be ingpartialdefinition ofpoliticalecologyforthisregime
furtherdistinguished and refinedanalytically.How- as the studyof manifoldconstructions of nature(en-
ever,theyconstitute a solidbasison whichtomovefor- semblesofmeanings/uses) in contextsofpower.Power
wardwiththeanthropology ofknowledge, particularlyhereneedsto be studiednotonlyin termsofsocialand
in the ecologicaldomainof application.Theyalso es- production relationsbutin relationto local knowledge,
tablishan alternative framework forthinking abouta culture,and organiclife.It is clear,ofcourse,thatthe
varietyofissuesfrombiodiversity conservation to the varietyoforganicnaturesis immense-from humidfor-
politicsofplace andglobalization(Escobari988a, b). eststo dryecosystems, fromthegreenhillsofpeasant
To sumup,culturalmodelsofnatureareconstituted farming to thesteppeofthenomads-and has its own
by ensemblesofmeanings/uses that,whileexistingin set ofactors,practices,meanings, interactions,and so-
contextsof power that increasinglyinclude trans- cial relations.The studyof organicnaturethus goes
nationalforces,can neitherbe reducedto modemcon- well beyondthe studyof ecosystemswiththeirfunc-
structions norbe accountedforwithoutsomereference tions,structures, boundaries, flows,andfeedbackloops
 ESCOBAR AfterNatureI Ii

and withpeopleas simplyone moreelementof "the has beenpresenteversincethediscovery ofthestruc-

system."Ecosystemsecologyis an outsider'sand top- tureof the firstmacromolecules (certainly DNA) but
downperspective thatoverlooksorganicnature'sexpe- has madea qualitativeleapwithcontemporary develop-
rientialand constitutiverelationaldimensions.The mentsin molecularbiology.'8
political ecology of organicnature also transcends The treatment ofnew biotechnologies by thepublic
analysesofproduction, govemmentality, and thecom- indicatesthatit is becomingculturally possibleto play
modity."The anthropology oflocal knowledge"serves withunprecedented combinationsof the organicand
as a shorthand forwhatis missingfromtheseanalyses, the artificial (Strathernm992b). Withtechnonature we
howevervaluableand necessary.'7 enteran eraofpureantiessentialism (althoughnew es-
sentialismsare introduced in otherdomains).Organic
and techno- natures converge inthisantiessentialism to
TECHNONATURE: ARTIFICIALITY AND VIRTUALITY
theextentthattheyarebothirrevocably local andpar-
Iforganicity existsin theknowledgeand practicesofa ticular(although therearepressures on technonature to
varietyofsocialgroupsthroughout theworld,it is also developuniversalapplications, especiallyin themedi-
truethata domainofartificiality is on therise.Hereit cal field).In addition,natureis no longerenframed in a
is neitherlocal knowledgenorlabor-based production certainorderin relationto "Man"-which is another
thatmediatesbetweenbiologyand history buttechno- wayofsayingthatwe are"afternature";thebiological,
science.Meanings,knowledge, and laborare ofcourse includinghumannature,becomesto a greatextenta
important in all threeregimes.The questionsare mo- questionofdesign.'9 The significance ofthereinvention
mentous:Do technonatures makepossiblea newexpe- ofnaturelies here,as well as in technonature's ability
rienceofthenaturalthatcouldfacilitate there-creation to createradicalbiologicalalterity. Whereascapitalist
of a (different)continuity betweenthe social and the natureintroducednatureinto samenessand organic
natural? Will they allow us to overcomethealienation naturewas/is always predicatedon localized forms,
broughtaboutby capitalistnature,its dependenceon technonature makesalterity proliferate."Diversity"-
theexploitation oflabor,or thefetishism ofnatureas a keyconceptin bothbiologyandanthropology-takes
commodity? Alternatively, willtheydeepenthetenden- on new meanings.20
ciesofcapitalistnature?Aretheynecessarily capitalist, Whatwill happento organicand capitalistnatures
and,whethercapitalistor not,will theyfosterhuman underthe reignof technonature? Some clues foran-
capacitiesto sustainand careforlifeand each otheror sweringthisquestioncan be foundin currentassess-
insteadsubordinate lifeto technology and theproduc- mentsof new technosciences. Some see in the riseof
tion of value? Provisionalanswersto thesequestions virtuality thedemiseofbothorganicand capitalistna-
will largelydependon ourassessmentofthenew tech-
positions in this regardare
nosciences. Unfortunately,
commonly polarized,oscillatingbetweentheextremes i8. The choiceofrecombinantDNA as a markerfortechnonature
To mayappeararbitrary.Whilemolecularbiology-as a movementof
of celebration
uncritical and condemnation. gain and
ofbiology,physics,chemistry,
peopleandideasat theinterface
some understandingit is necessaryto navigatebetween computing-hasbeen on the risesince the 1930s,it was onlyin
these extremes. displacingsomeofitscom-
the I96os thatit achievedprominence,
With contemporarytechnoscience (from recombi- petitors(particularly and resultingin what some
biochemistry)
nantDNA on), the modemmodelof the relationship considered a revolutionsimilarto thatofphysicsin thefirstquar-
ter of the century.This newly achievedprominencewas pro-
betweenthesocial and thenaturalis newlyunsettled. foundlypolitical-a power-knowledge aroundwhathas been
affair
Morethaneverthenaturalis seen as a productofthe termed"the politicsofmacromolecules"(see Abir-Am1992).
in thatbiologyis undercon- I9. Withartificiallifeand otherformsofbiologicalmodelingit is
social.The beliefis settling
troland, as Strathemadds, "biologyundercontrolis no possibleto saythatwe haveenteredtheeraofevolutiondesign,at
leastin themindsoftheirproponents (seeHelmreichandSuchman
longer'nature"' (I 992b:35). Nature disappears and be- n.d.and Fujimuran.d.).
comes the result of constant reinvention (Haraway zo. New biological,information, and computertechnologiespre-
199I). DNA-includ-
Developmentsafterrecombinant sagean important historicalrupture.Theycreatea newpoleofcul-
ingthe developmentofthepolymerase chainreaction tureandsubjectivity in additionto theexistingpolesoforalityand
(Rabinow i996), the human genome project,biological writing-thatof virtuality. Some of the featuresof thesepoles,
schematically,are the following:Orality is characterizedby
modeling, nano-biotechnologies,cloning, transgenic time,narrativeand ritualas formsof knowl-
biological/circular
foods,etc.-have reinforcedthis belief.This possibility edge,historicalcontinuity,face-to-facecommunication, oraltradi-
tion,and organicnature;writingby lineartime,theoryand inter-
pretationas modesof knowledge,writtenhistory,accumulation,
17. AlettaBiersack(personalcommunication) raises the issue of text,and capitalistnature;and virtuality by real time (punctual,
whetherFoucauldiangovernmentality does not applyto the or- with no lags), simulationand modelingas dominantmodes of
ganicregime.To theextentthatgovernmentality is definedexplic- knowledge, overlappingoftimesandbecomings(speed,space/time
itlyin termsofmodemexpertpower-knowledge apparatuses, I be- compression),digital (and biodigital?)networks,hypertext, and
lieve thisis notthecase. This does notmeanthatorganicregimes technonature. Again,thesepoles of subjectivity are not stagesof
do nothave mechanismsofregulation and control,whichis a key history butcoexisttoday,althoughwithvarying intensities;in the
question.In conservation settingstoday,however,local groupsare samewaythatscriptural modesredefined andsubordinated orality,
increasingly facedwiththegovernmentalization oftheirenviron- informatic/hypertextual modes are todaysubordinating writing
mentsand pushedto participatein thatprocess(see also Brosius and hermeneutic-based modesofknowledge(includinganthropol-
'997). ogy).This hypothesis is developedby PierreLevy(i9sI, 1995).
I2 I CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume40, Numberi, Februaryi999

tures(Kroker andWeinsteinI994). The dominantlogic expanded ecological consciousness . . . should lead to

driving thistransformation is thatofrecombination: re- puttingthe ideologyofproduction forthesake ofpro-
combinantbody,nature,commodity, culture(Heller ductionback into question,"guidedby "the decon-
i998). This inaugurates a periodofpostcapitalism that structionofthemarketandtherecentering ofeconomic
marksthe eclipseofthe organicand the triumphofa activities on the production of subjectivity" (I995a:
virtualclassfullycommitted to theinformational logic I22). Ecological,technoeconomic, cultural,and subjec-
ofrecombinant nature/culture. Undertheillusionofin- tivedimensionsneed to be incorporated intothe pur-
teractivity, thevirtualclass willbe freeto designcyber suitof"a newtypeofsocialpracticebettersuitedboth
bodiesand disappearinto purevirtuality (Krokerand to issuesofa verylocal natureand to theglobalprob-
WeinsteinI994). Despite these writers'penchantfor lemsofourera" (p. I21). Ecosophyentailsnewexisten-
rhetorical excess,itis important torecognize thatvirtu- tial territories
wherebiosphere, sociosphere, and tech-
ality-like organicity and capitalism-is an important nospherecan be constructively articulated. This view
principleofproduction ofthesocial and thebiological echoesHaraway's(i99i) call forrethinking ofthepossi-
today.2' Virilio(I997) underscores a similarly crucialas- bilitiesopenedto variousgroupsby thebreakdownof
pectoftheemerging. order,theimpactofreal-time tech- clearboundariesbetweentheorganicand themachine
nologies.Operating at thespeedoflight,thesetechnol- through theachievement ofcontroloverthesocialrela-
ogieserodethevalue ofthehereand now in favorofa tionsofscienceand technology.
communicative elsewherethathas nothingto do with Thesearenotonlyutopianpossibilities. Networksof
concretepresenceand places. Real-timetechnologies all kindslinkedto new technologies are beingused in
markthedeclineofplace,territory, and thebodyin fa- creativewaysall overtheworld;thefragmentation fos-
vor of a terminal-citizen, the globaldelocalizationof teredby new technologies also presentsopportunities
humanactivity, and thedevaluationoflocal time.The forcoalitionbuildingand forbuildingstrengths out of
unicityoftimereplacestheunicityofplace,signaling differences (Chernaiki996), and in the case of social
a new formofpollutioncharacterized by thedisplace- movements-suchas women's,ethnic,and indigenous
mentof extensionand duration.We fallinto "a split movements-suchnetworks can alreadybe seenas giv-
betweenactivityand interactivity, presenceand tele- ingriseto notinsignificant formsof"glocality"(Dirlik
presence,existenceand tele-existence" (p. 44). The res- I997). The more social groupslearn to denaturalize
olutionofthissplit,it can be argued,will dependon an taken-for-granted constructions of (gender,sexuality,
unprecedented culturalpoliticslinkingorganicity, vir- ethnic)identity, the moreopen theyare to new rela-
tuality,and the transformative defenseof place and tionalconfigurations in connectionwithenablingnet-
identity (Escobari998C). works.Science-fiction writersare activelyimagining
Forotherthinkers, virtuality affords new opportuni- thesepossibilities; theyvisualizeotherbodies,families,
ties forthe creationof subjectivitiesand ecological kinship, andwaysoflifethatplayon newcombinations
practices.For Guattari(igg5a, b), while new technolo- oftheorganic, thecultural, andthetechnological (Hara-
giestodayarereinforcing themostretrograde aspectsof way I992, Chemaiki996). We needto thinkaboutthe
capitalistvalorization, theyalso adumbrate otherforms social and politicalconditionsthat could turnthese
and modalitiesof being."The contemporary world- imaginings intolife-affirming processesin concretesit-
tied up in its ecological,demographic and urbanim- uations.The possibilitiescreatedby new technologies
passes-is incapableofabsorbing, in a waythatis com- are mostpromising whenthoughtout in conjunction
patiblewiththe interestsof humanity, the extraordi-withthedefenseofplaceandplace-basedecological,so-
narytechnico-scientific mutationswhichshakeit. It is cial, and culturalpractices.Alternative networkslink-
lockedin a vertiginous racetowardsruinor radicalre- inghumansand nonhumanscouldalso be seen in this
newal"(ig95a:9i). A politicalecologyofvirtuality will light(Escobari998b, c; see also DirlikI997).
engender newconditions forculturallifeandsubjectiv- Science-and-technology studiesprovideus a seriesof
ity. A generalizedecology-"ecosophy,"as Guattari conceptsforexaminingthenew realitiesand possibili-
calls it-will have to createnot onlynew relationsto ties.Someofthesearewelldeveloped,othersonlysug-
natureand each otherbuta new-ethics thatchallenges gestive.Amongthemaretheapparatusofbodily/nature
technocapitalist valorization. Freedfromthehegemony production-theensembleoftechnoeconomic, institu-
ofcapital,a politicsofthevirtualwouldvindicatepro- tional,and discursiveprocessesthat accountforna-
cessuality, connectivity, and singularization. ture'sproduction today,including thediscoursesofsci-
At therootofthisvisionary stanceis a different view ence(HarawayI992); thecyborg as a metaphor fornew
oftechnology itself.New technologies bringintoexis- modesof beingand foralliancesbetweenthe organic
tence new significations and universesof reference. and theartificial; and simulationas the chiefmodeof
Theyare conduciveto alterityand ontologicalhetero- knowledge andinteractivity andpositionality as princi-
genesis-manifold formsofbeing.ForGuattari, thede- plesofknowledge in theage oftechnonature andvirtu-
centering oftheeconomyas theorganizing principleof ality(Haylesi995). The fieldofsocialstudiesofscience
sociallifeis a precondition forthistransformation: "an and technology facilitatesthe studyof the co-produc-
tionof technoscience and society(see Hess i995 and
2 I. This viewis elaborated
in dystopian mostnoto- FranklinI995 forreviews).In the sciences, the language
sciencefiction,
riouslybyWilliamGibson. ofcomplexity is a promising attemptat a new under-
 ESCOBAR AfterNatureI I3

standingof the world;thislanguagecan suggestideas est commonlyemphasizefourfundamental rights:to

forextricating nature,economy, andtheworldfromthe territory, identity,politicalautonomy,and theirown
constraints ofobjectivism and movingin thedirection viewofdevelopment oreconomy.Theyare,in thisway,
ofGuattari'scall.22 movementsofecologicaland culturalattachment to a
A definitionof politicalecologyfor technonatureterritory. Forthem,therighttoexistis a cultural, politi-
would emphasizethe bioculturalconfigurations that cal, and ecologicalquestion.They necessarilyengage
are emerging and thosethatare possibleaccordingtc withcertainformsof the commodity and marketex-
particularconstellationsof actors,technologies,and changewhileresisting a purelycapitalisticvalorization
practices.The politicalecologyoftechnonature would ofnature(GuhaI997, MartinezAlieri99s5). Byadopting
studytheactualandpotentialbiocultural arrangementsa cautiousopeningtowardstechnonature in theiren-
linkedto technoscience, particularly alongtheaxes ol gagementwith the transnational biodiversity appara-
organicity-artificiality and reality-virtuality. It would tus,theyadumbratethe possibilityof hybridizing the
examinediscoursesand practicesoflifeand theextent organicwiththeartificial. Could theybe seen,then,as
towhichtheyareconduciveto newnatures,socialrela- advancing throughtheirpracticea strategyofhybrid na-
tions,and culturalpractices.It is important thatthe turesin which the organicservesas anchorforthe
ethnographies of technonature not focuson elite con- struggle? Whatis certainis thatsuch a projectwould
textsonlyoron theirimpacton nonelitecommunities; findin thedefenseofterritory andcultureitsreasonfor
theyshouldalso explorethelocallyconstituted cultural beingand its politics.24
and materialresourcesthatmarginalized communities Hybridnaturesmightconstitute forthesegroupsan
are able to mobilizefortheiradaptationor hybridiza- attempt to incorporatemultipleconstructions ofnature
tionin theproduction of theiridentitiesand political in orderto negotiate withtranslocalforceswhilemain-
strategies?2 taininga modicumofautonomyandculturalcohesion.
Theymightallow social groupsto introducesome di-
versityintotheirpoliticalstrategies forengaging with
The Politics of HybridNatures thedominant.On whattypesofmicro-andmacropoli-
ticsofnatureandculturemusthybridization relyin or-
Is it necessaryto say thatsocial groupsare beingpro- der to be a reasonablyproductivestrategy forsocial
pelledtowardsthebiologicalin sucha waythatthehy- movements oftherainforest? Whatwouldbe therela-
bridization ofdifferent regimesis perhapsinevitable? Is tion betweencollectiveidentities,politicalstrategy,
it possibleto talkabouthybridnaturesas othershave and ecologicalrationality thatmightmake hybridiza-
talkedabouthybrid cultures? In theLatinAmericande- tion possibleand practicableforlocal groups?What
bateson thesubject(see GarciaCanclinii990 and,for wouldbe theconstraints (localand global)to thistype
a criticalsummary, Escobari995), hybridization is con- of strategy?Whatdiscoursesand strategies-biodiver-
ceptualizedas a process,a meanstoalterity andcultural sityconservation, indigenousrights/knowledge, gene
affirmation. It is a way of crossingthe boundarybe- prospecting, intellectual(property)rights,etc.-might
tweenthetraditional andthemodemandofusingboth provideusefulsurfacesof engagement betweenlocal
local and transnational culturalresourcesto create groupsand othersocial actors(scientists, biodiversity
uniquecollectiveidentities.Culturalhybridization in- prospectors, feminists,NGOs, et al.)? These questions
volves complexprocessesof identityproductionin are beginningto be examinedby studentsdoingre-
transnationalized environments wherethelocal never- searchat the conservation/development interface, as
thelessretainssignificant vitality. well as by some social movements and NGOs in Asia,
To hintat thepossibility ofhybrid natures,let us re- Africa, andLatinAmerica(GuptaI997).25 Theyarepre-
turntotherainforest. Socialmovements oftherainfor- sentedhere chieflyas hypothesesto be explored,al-
thoughtheirsignificance can alreadybe glimpsedin
22. A keyquestionforthispoliticalecologyis therelationbetween rain-foreststruggles.
capitalismand the new technologies.Inquiryinto the political To theextentthatbiodiversity conservation andbio-
economyofnew technologies is barelybeginning, butit mightbe technology have becomepowerfulinterfaces between
possibleto imaginenovelnoncapitalist processesofappropriation rain-forestnaturesand social practice,thesepossibili-
and distribution
ofsurplusin connectionwithorganicand techno-
natures(Gibson-Graham i996). The transformations createdby
ties cannot be overlooked. Could rain-forestsocial
new technologiescannotbe reducedto capitalistpowerforma-
tions.Whileconventional andnew capitalismswill certainlybe in24. ElsewhereI analyzethepoliticalecologyof the Pacificregion
force,technoscientificprocesseswill requirean expandedand black movementat lengthwithparticularreference to themove-
transformed definition
ofcapital.The formulaforsurplusvalue,forment'ssophisticated approachto thequestionofbiodiversity con-
instance,is extremelylimitedin this regard.Insightsinto how servation(EscobarI998a).
powerand resistanceworkin technoculture (nomadic,decentral-25. AnilGupta(I997),forinstance,discussesa mechanismforhy-
ized,dispersed)
needtobe relatedto questionsofpoliticaleconomy bridizingtraditionaland high-techknowledgesystemsthrough
(Critical Art Ensemble i996). networksthatallowforregistering anddeveloping grassrootsinno-
23. Ron Eglashproposeda panelforthe i996 AmericanAnthropo- vations.His HoneyBee Networkis becomingwell knownin this
logical Associationmeetingsalong these lines: "Appropriating respect.A gooddeal ofexperimentationis takingplacein thisarea,
Technology:Adaptationand Productionof Scienceand Invention particularly in conjunctionwiththesearchforalternatives to the
amongMarginalizedCommunitiesand Identities."See also Hess mainstreamintellectualproperty rightsregimespromotedby the
(I995). WorldTradeOrganization(see Brushand Stabinskii996).
I41 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume40, Numberi, Februaryi999

movementsenvisionalliances betweenorganicand analysisofthissuggestive view is beyondthescopeof

techno-naturesagainsttheravagesofcapitalistnature thispaper;sufficeit to say thatin reducingthediffer-
thatnevertheless retainsomeofthebiocultural auton- ence betweenmodemsand premodemsto the size of
omyoftheorganic?And,to theextentthatwomenand thenetworks theyinventLatouroverlooksotherimpor-
indigenous groupsarepositedin dominant discoursesas tant factorsin the productionof natures/cultures-
"stewards"ofnature,arenotnew articulations ofgen- fromthe relationsof poweramongnetworks(Dirlik
der,power,and culturealso neededto infusenew life I9971 to the requirements forconstructing ecological
intonatureand history? Hybridizations of natureand andjustsocietiesthrough technological networks. How
cultureand new narratives of genderand biodiversitycan modemsregulatethe production of hybrids while
are emergingfromthe collectivepracticeof social respecting ecologicaland culturaldifference? Latour's
movementsand communitiesdespitedifficulties and view,while antiessentialist in emphasizingthatnet-
contradictions and againsttremendousodds (Escobar worksmustbe seenin termsnotofessencesbutofpro-
igg8a, b). cesses and passages,is influenced by the modemnet-
Hybridization is notrestricted ofor- works(academic,Euro-centered)
to articulations in whichhe himselfis
ganicand techno-natures.Theymayalso be possible enmeshed;thisfactblindshimto otherwaysofthink-
amongdifferent typesoforganicregimesand theircor- ingaboutdifference in connectionto place and place-
responding social actors(forinstance,amonggroups basedpractices(Escobari998C).
withinthe same ecosystem,such as different ethnic This is to say thatwe need a morepoliticalview of
groupsin a rain-forest area confronting commonene- hybridization. In discussingthe construction of new
mies,oramonggroupsin rainforests worldwide) orbe- publicspheresoutoftoday'sfragmented society,Laclau
tweencapitalistand organicnatures(via agroforestry, (i996:65)succinctlysummarizesthepoliticsofanties-
forinstance,or ecotourism). Capitalismand new tech- sentialismforsocial struggles:
nologiesalso createtheirownformsoftheorganic(eco-
tourism,naturalreserves,CD-ROM naturalism, etc.). Differences andparticularism arethenecessary start-
These "organic"forms,however,documentformsof ingpoint,butout ofit,it is possibleto openthe
theartificial.
Hybridization couldalso shedlighton the wayto a relativeuniversalization ofvalueswhich
manifoldeconomicforms-capitalistand not,market can be thebasisfora popularhegemony. This uni-
andnot-thatareat playorbeingcreatedinpeasantand versalization and its opencharacter certainly con-
rain-forestcontexts(Gudemani996), as well as on re- demnall identity to an unavoidablehybridization,
definitionsofgenderand environment thatare emerg- buthybridization does notnecessarily meandecline
ing fromwomen'sformsof struggleand cooperation through theloss ofidentity: it can also meanem-
(Rocheleau,Thomas-Slayter, and Wangarii996). All of poweringexistingidentitiesthrough theopeningof
thisis despitethefactthatdominantdiscoursesofin- newpossibilities. Onlya conservative identity,
tellectualproperty rightsandgeneticresourcesamount closedon itself,couldexperience hybridization as a
to a new sortof predationon the lifespaces of those loss. Butthisdemocratico-hegemonic possibility has
who have existedon the marginsof the chemicaland to ... takefulladvantageofthepoliticalpossibili-
money economies. As Shiva (I997) says, multinational tiesthatthisundecidability opens.
corporations are havingto loot fromthepoorestpeas-
antsto generate newknowledge forcommercial lifeap- Finally,can naturebe theorizedwithinan antiessen-
plications.At the same time,however,ThirdWorld tialistframework withoutmarginalizing thebiological?
actorsareforthefirsttimein theinternational develop- This is an extremely complexepistemological and po-
mentexperiencenoticeablypresentin discussionsof liticalquestionwhichis boundto receivea lotofatten-
theseissues.Thisis anotherindicationthatthepolitics tionifwe wantto go on thinking abouttheseissuesat
ofnatureand culturetodaydefieseasycategorizations.all. The current fragmentation ofknowledge cangiveus
The view of hybridization presentedhere is some- onlya dispersedimageofbioculturalreality,and this
whatdifferent fromLatour'sinfluential analysisofthe makesa solutionto the environmental crisisunwork-
networksof humansand nonhumansthroughwhich able if not unthinkable. The cultural,biological,and
hybrids ofnatureand cultureareproduced.ForLatour, historicalordersmayrequiredifferent epistemological
moderns andso-calledpremoderns arealikein thatthey strategies, andtheobjectsofthesocialand theecologi-
both"buildcommunities ofnaturesand societies.... cal sciencesmustnotbe carelesslyconflated, butthey
All natures-cultures are similarin thattheysimulta- do have to be articulated intoa noveltypeofenviron-
neouslyconstruct humans,divinitiesandnonhumans" mentalinquiry.Somecluesforthistaskhavebeenpro-
(Pp. I03, io6). In this way, all naturesare hybrid videdbya handfulofwriters. Ingold,forinstance,sug-
whichmakessensefromtheperspective ofthispaper. geststhata much-needed overhaulofthe relationship
The difference amongsocieties,Latourargues,lies in betweenanthropology and biologyrequires"nothing
thesize andscale ofthenetworks theycreate.Moderns less thana paradigm-shift withinbiologyitself"(i990:
are differentbecausetheymobilizenaturemoreeffec- 2o8) and a significant transformation ofanthropology.
tivelyfortheconstruction ofculturebyenlisting more A recentering of biologyon the organism-margin-
powerful nonhumans(technologies), whichin turnpro- alizedbyneo-Darwinianism, modemgenetics,andmo-
vide moreand morehybridsforremakingsociety.An lecularbiology-and a recontextualization of the an-
 ESCOBAR AfterNature1i5

thropology ofpersonswithina biologyoforganisms are Haylessuggeststhatwe need to acknowledgethatwe

essentialprinciplesforthisnew synthesis.All of this are alwayspositionedobserversand thatour observa-
takesplace,in Ingold'sprovocative proposal,withina tionsalwaystakeplace in continuousinteraction with
processualand relationalconceptionoforganicand so- theworldandourselves.It is onlyfroma perspective of
cial life. fullyacceptedinteractivity and positionality thatwe
At stakeis a new "bioculturalsynthesis" whichcan can pursueconsistency in ourscientific accountsofre-
be pursuedfroma varietyof perspectives. Goodman, ality.This,ofcourse,doesnotcompletely solvethepro-
Leathermann, andThomashavespearheaded thiseffort foundepistemological problems posedbytheencounter
fromtheperspective ofpoliticaleconomy(i996; Good- betweenscienceand constructivism (theobjectof the
manandLeathermann i998),thatis,bybringing politi- recent"sciencewars"),butitprovidesprovisional steps
cal economyconsiderations to bearon coreconceptsof formovingbeyondthepresentimpasse.The "question
biologicalanthropology suchas adaptation.Theirproj- ofnature"maywell be themostfertileterrainforthis
ect opens the way forcomplementary perspectives- endeavorandfora newdialogueamongthenatural,hu-
feministand poststructuralist, forinstance(Hvalkof man,and social sciences.
and Escobari998). Palsson (I9971has recentlyadvo-
catedan integration ofhumanecologyandsocialtheory
drawingon pragmatismand phenomenology while Conclusion: The Politics of Political Ecology
movingawayfromdualistthinking. The workofMa-
turanaandVarelacanbe reinterpreted in thislightfrom An important goal ofpoliticalecologyis to understand
a biocultural perspective, butmuchworkremainsto be andparticipate in theensembleofforceslinkingsocial
doneto makeit effective as a sourceofinsightsforan- change,environment, and development. This goal sug-
thropology. In general,workon novelbiocultural theo- gestsnewquestionsforpoliticalecologists.How do we
riesthattakenewtrendsin bothbiologyandsocialthe- situateourselvesin the circuitsof power-knowledge
oryintoaccountis justbeginning. (say,in the apparatusof biodiversity production) that
The perspective developedby theMexicanecologist we seekto understand? Whatsortsofelementscan we
EnriqueLeffis promisingin this regard.He proposes contribute to the articulation of the politicsofnature
thatwe canworktowardsa newarticulation ofthenat- production bysubaltern orothergroupsand,depending
ural and humansciencesin the contextof creatinga on ourexpertise, to the elaborationofalternative eco-
newenvironmental rationality thatweavestogether re- logical and economicproposals?These questionsre-
gime-specific cultural,ecological,and technoeconomic quire that we make explicitthe "ecologicalattach-
productivities (natureis materialbut signified and ap- ments" that are intensifiedby our participation in
propriated in culturallyand technoeconomically spe- particularnatureregimesand cultures,includingthe
cificways).The ecologicalneedsto be understood in bi- verypeculiarcultureofthemodemsocial and biologi-
ologicaltermsbut in complexrelationwith cultural cal sciences.
and economicpractices.This will entail redeploying I beganbysuggesting thatthecrisisofnatureis a cri-
paradigmsand reorienting technoscientific develop- sis ofnature'sidentity, and thisidea led to an outline
ment.The articulation ofmaterial,cultural,and social foran antiessentialist theoryof nature.Nature has
processeswill take intoaccountthe scientificknowl- ceased to be essentiallyanything formostpeople,in-
edgeoftheworldwithoutadoptinga reductionistic ori- cluding,in some cases, thoseattachedto organicna-
entationand fosterthe analyticalelucidationof new tures.27 It is no coincidencethattheriseoftechnonature
scientific objectsforecologicalstudies(Leffi 995,i986). and artificial lifecoincidewitha planetary preoccupa-
This new typeoftransdisciplinarity has yetto be cre- tionwiththefateofbiologicaldiversity. Couldthenew
ated.26 life technologiesfosterothertypesof creativity and
A finalguidepost fora newbioculturalism is provided meansforwresting controloflifeawayfrompurelycap-
byHayles(i995),who saysthatit is timeforenviron- italistgoals?Could thepresentrupture in themeaning
mentalists, scientists, andsocialconstructivists to seek ofthenaturallead to a new artoflivingin society/na-
commonground.As antiessentialists, howdo we theo- ture?Whatabouttheestablishment ofnewgroundsfor
rize the "unmediatedflux" of biophysicalreality? existence-a rearticulation ofsubjectivity and alterity
in theirsocial,cultural,and ecologicaldimensions? In
26. Most of Leff'sworkis in Spanish:on the articulation of the various spaces across the three regimes of natureand in
sciences,see especiallyLeff(i986). See,in English,Leff(I993, 1994, theirintersections we arewitnessing an unprecedented
I995). Leff's
argument is Marxist,Foucauldian,and ecological.On historical movement ofculturalandbiologicallife.This
theecologicalside,thekeyforLefflies in enhancingnaturalcapac- movement seems most promising at theleveloftheor-
ities throughthe negentropic productionof biomassfromphoto-
synthesisand designingtechnologicalsystemsthatminimizeen- ganic and techno- regimes. It is necessary tothinkabout
tropic transformations.Biotechnologycan increase ecological
productivityso conceivedwhile preserving the complexityof an
ecosystem.Negentropicprocessesof biomass production,self- 27. I makethisstatementcautiously.Manynativepeoplesexplain
organizingprocessesofecologicalsuccession,biologicalevolution, theirviewsofthenaturalworldin termsofan essentialconnection
andmetabolism, andpoliticalprocessesofappropria-
technological tonature,butacceptingthisstatementat facevaluedoesnotimply
mustbe consideredas
tion,and culturalprocessesofsignification placingthem-theirviews or relationsto nature-outsideofhis-
a wholeto imaginean alternative productiverationality. tory.
:6 I CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume40, Numberi, Februaryi999

thepoliticaland economictransformations thatwould politicsofnature,broadlyconstrued, areforever obliged

make intersections of the organicand the artificiala to preemptmisreadings bornoftheuse ofrhetorically
hopefulturnofeventsin thehistoryofsocial nature. powerfulterminology. The temptationto read any
unhedgedreferenceto natureand its myriadnear-
synonyms as sustaining a politically naivestanceseems
irresistible
withina profession so awareoftheconcep-
Comments tual and physicalviolenceperpetrated in the name of
trueknowledge, based,ofcourse,on theidea ofa preso-
cial nature.Unfortunately, I am notsurethatEscobar's
EEVA BERGLUND "cautionary observations" againstreification, forexam-
Nervanderink 7 B i6, ooioo Helsinki,Finland. ple, convincethe unsympathetic reader.At the same
I7 VI 98 time,his caveatsseem superfluous if onlybecauseby
now theyare so familiar. Is thisdangerofmisreadings
Escobar'ssuggestionof an "anthropological political partlyresponsible fortherathertenuousrelationship of
ecology"is a timelyand welcomecontribution to a so thetheoretical discussionto theempiricalexamplesof-
fardiffuse effortto bringtheinsightsofculturalandso- fered?
cial anthropology tobearon thepoliticsofenvironmen- Of course,seekingto resolvethe questionofnature
tal protection.This effort shouldalso enrichthetheo- as thispapersetsoutto is boundto leadto somemental
reticaltoolkitofthedisciplineandenableit everbetter acrobatics. The mosttroubling aspectofconfronting na-
to addressa wholerangeofquestionsrelatingto politi- tureas an intellectualand politicalconcepthead-onis
cal andepistemological transformations. Escobar'splea thatin practicenatureremainsa keyontologicalfoun-
forupdatingofthebasic constructs ofnature,culture, dation,indefinite as it maybe,foroperating bothintel-
society,polity,and the economyfindsample echo in lectuallyandmorallyin theworldinwhichwe findour-
theworkofmanyanthropologists who areseekingnot selvestoday.A simpleraim,witha clearersenseofhow
onlyto go beyondthe steriledichotomy betweenthe thetheoryaidsan understanding ofthepractice, would
givenand the constructed but to reconnectthe emer- makethepapermoreaccessible.I cannothelpbutfeel
genceofsuch theoretical formulations withtheworld thatitwouldbe morehelpfulto thetaskofestablishing
we tryto understand. I wish to take up thislink be- anthropology as a contributor to an important debateof
tweentheoryand illustration or practiceand to make ourtimesto hearmoreabouttheColombianrainforest
someobservations aboutessentialism andreadingprac- evenat theriskofreification ifnotessentialism. Some,
tices. ifnotall, oftheintricacies ofthe"questionofnature"
In the firstparagraphEscobarstatesthatit is not as Escobarsees themwouldbecomeclearer,providing
enoughtonotethat"particular forms ofsocialorganiza- moregrounding forreaderswhosemaintheoretical in-
tion"areat therootofthe"questionofnature."It may terestsor, quite simply,readinghabitsfindnourish-
notbe enoughtomakeitclearthatecologicalandsocial mentin otherdebates,maybeevenotherdisciplines.
conditionsare inextricably linkedto each other,butit The pointis thatin establishing an interestin the
is an important beginning and a contribution to politi- ecologicalorin environmental politics,anthropologists
cal debate that anthropology is exceptionallywell- can do morethancreatea sensethatthedebateis im-
placedto reiterate andalso to illustrate.So whynottell portantand complicated.Forthiswe need salientand
us evenmoreabouttheColombianrainforest-engage distinguishable analyticalterms,on theone hand,and
in morethana "briefimagination exercise"forexplor- antiessentialist readings, on theother,bothinformed by
ing thepromisesofpoliticalecologyand the regimes- the articulationsof the biologicaland the historical
of-nature model?Someofthebroad-ranging theoretical in whichwe ourselvesand thoseaboutwhomwe write
discussionwouldbe lostin theprocess,certainly, butI engage.
am ratheroverwhelmed by the sense ofa searchfora
"theoryof everything" here. Besides,or insteadof,
workingthroughmoreempiricalmaterial,mightthis J. PETER BROSIUS
be remedied bychoosingtoattendprimarily toonlyone Department ofAnthropology, University ofGeorgia,
ofthetwoissuesat theheartofthepaper,as I readit- Athens,Ga. 30602-I6i9, U.S.A. (pbrosius@arches.
the ontologicaland epistemological character of(what uga.edu). i6 vii 98
we intuitively interpret as) nature,oralternatively, the
unevennessin people'spossibilitiesof deconstructingIn recentyearsanthropologists have contributed sig-
and reconstructing ecologicalrelations? nificantlyto a remarkable transdisciplinary florescence
Certainly,moredirectlinkagestoempirical examples ofenvironmental scholarship. Escobarhas beenone of
mightpose toogreata riskofessentialism and itstwin the mostnoteworthy, and thepresenteffort to articu-
vice,tokenism. The riskis notinsignificant, butneither late an antiessentialist politicalecologystandsas one
is it avoidable.In this regard,the whole paperin its ofhis mostconsequentialcontributions thusfar.
complexity raisedforme thequestionsofreadingand The term"politicalecology"is one thatappearswith
oftheuses ofthekindsofknowledge thatcan be decon- ever-greater frequency in contemporary environmental
textualized.It seems thatthoseof us workingon the scholarship,thoughdifferent writersmean different
 ESCOBAR AfterNatureI I7

thingswhen theyspeak of it. Broadly,however,it is comfort withthenotionoforganicity. Indeed,as I be-

possible to recognizetwo primaryforms.The first, lievehe recognizes, theidea oftheorganicmaybe put
whichEscobardescribes, representsa fusionofhuman to anynumberofnefarious uses: theblood-and-soil es-
ecologywithpoliticaleconomy.It takesas its pointof sentialismofNationalSocialismis butoneexample.As
departure the existenceofan unproblematic material/ I have pointedout elsewhere(BrosiusI9971, at a time
ecologicalbase and a seriesofactors,differentially em- whenconservation is increasingly tiedup withidentity
poweredbutwithclearinterests, contestingtheclaims politics,thelinebetweenwhatis potentially emancipa-
ofothersto resourcesin a particular ecologicalcontext. toryand what is potentially reactionary is no longer
Opposedto thisis a formofpoliticalecologyinformed clear. Given the potentialfora reactionary politics
by poststructuralist social theoryand represented by wheneverorganicity is invoked,it would seem to me
theworkofWatts,Rocheleau,and others.Whatmost preferable toemploysomeothertermthatdescribes the
characterizes thisperspective is thatit takes"nature," "local modelofthenatural."
as well as theidentities andinterests ofvariousagents, This essayrepresents one ofthemostsignificant at-
to be bothcontingent and problematic. By describing temptsyetto developa poststructuralist politicalecol-
politicalecologyas thearticulation ofhistory andbiol- ogythatprovidesthebasisforan engagedexamination
ogyand bydefining threespecific"regimesofarticula- of "the crisisofnature'sidentity"and its significance
tion,"Escobarbuildsuponand extendsthislatterform forunderstanding a rangeof contemporary humanin-
of politicalecologyin severalways.In his insightful terventions intonature.In so doing,it bothopensup a
treatment ofthe idea of"nature,"Escobargoes a long seriesofnew linesofinquiryand laysthegroundwork
way towardtranscending the theoretical impassethat fornew formsofengagement in thepoliticsofnature.
has developedoverourlong-standing adherenceto the
nature/culture dichotomy. Equallysignificant,theform
of politicalecologyhe articulatesbringstogether sev-
eraldisparate domainsofrecentenvironmental scholar- DAVID A. CLEVELAND
ship,mostnotablythestudyofsocial movements and Department ofAnthropology, University of
explorations oftheemergence oftechnonature, andpro- California, Santa Barbara,Calif.93i06-32IO, U.S.A.
videsa basisforthedevelopment ofan engagedcritical (clevelanlifesci.ucsb.edu). i VII 98
environmental praxis.
It seems to me that Escobar'sargumentcould be "It is dangerousto have two cultureswhichcan't or
strengthened bytheclarification ofseveralpoints.First, don'tcommunicate," wroteC. P. Snowin i963, refer-
in identifying threeregimesof articulation, it is not ringto the culturesof the humanitiesand sciences
clearwhetherhe is suggesting thattheseare the only (Snowi964:98). His essaybrought to theattention ofat
threepossibleregimes.It wouldbe usefulif he could leastpartofthepostwarworldyetanotherwayoffram-
addressthepossibility ofotherregimesofarticulation inga coreproblemofthehumancondition: How do we
and perhapsexplorewhat some of these mightbe. I understand andactinan objective, physicalworldwhen
wonder,forinstance,whethertheactivisthe speaksof ourunderstanding can onlybe subjective?
is holdingthreeregimesin tension,as he suggests,or I agreewholeheartedly withEscobar'sstatedgoal of
whetherwe mightin factbe seeinganotherregimeof escapingthe excessesat bothextremesof the episte-
articulation altogether.Andwhatoftheecologist,con- mological/ontological spectrum-the poststructuralism/
servationbiologist,or newlyarrivedlandlesspeasant? postmodernism constructivist positionthat thereis
In short,I believethatthe analyticalpotentialof the "nothing naturalaboutnature"andtheobjectivist posi-
framework developedbyEscobarwouldbe enhancedif tionthatnaturecan be definedentirelyas "external"
it weremoreexplicitly open-ended andprovided forthe and "prediscursive." We need to worktowardhealing
possibility ofotherformsofarticulation. thegreatdivisionin contemporary intellectualinquiry
Second,Escobarproposesthateach regimeofarticu- in general(andanthropology in particular)
andfocuson
lationcanbe examined"fromtheperspective ofthepar- understanding and resolving thecrisisofhuman-envi-
ticularformofknowledgethatseemsbestsuitedto its ronment relationships: ifhumanbehavioris notaltered
study."In thecase oforganicnaturehe proposeswhat in thenearfuture we willobliterate ourownfuture and
he terms"theanthropology oflocal knowledge," in the thatofmanyotherspecies.Escobarhas donean excel-
case ofcapitalistnaturehistoricalmaterialism, and in lentjob in summarizing some ofthemainissues,and
thecase oftechnonature culturalstudiesofscienceand my commentsare meantto encouragemovementto-
technology. While thereis no questionthat each of wardthesamegoal ofbalance.
thesemodesofanalysishas providedvaluableinsights, First,we haveto tryharderto movebeyondourown
it seems prematureto foreclosethe possibilitythat biases.Escobaradvocates"a morebalancedposition,"
othermodesofanalysismaybe equallyinformative. It one thatacknowledges (i) "the constructedness ofna-
would be usefulif Escobarcould clarifyhis views on turein humancontexts-thefactthatmuchof what
thispossibility. ecologistsreferto as naturalis indeedalso a productof
Finally,thoughEscobaris explicitin disavowing any culture"and (2) "naturein therealistsense,thatis, the
semblanceofessentialism in hisarticulationoftheidea existenceofan independent orderofnature... therep-
of organicnature,he nevertheless expressessome dis- resentations ofwhichconstructivists can legitimately
:8 I CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume40, Numberi, Februaryi999

queryin termsof theirhistoryor politicalimplica- derstanding in detailthesimilarities anddifferences be-

tions." tweenlocal and scientificknowledge(e.g.,Cleveland,
The constructivistbias in this statement(and Soleri,and Smithn.d.)maybe one important way to-
throughout the article)is revealedby rewriting it to wardthenew kindsof"transdisciplinarity" thatEsco-
make the phrasesparallel:(i) natureas culturalcon- baradvocates,one withpracticalvalue.
struct-thefactthatmuchofwhatsomenaturalscien- We need to worktogether to createepistemological
tistsreferto as naturalis indeedalso a productofcul- processeswhichacknowledge boththebiophysical and
ture,yet scientistscan legitimatelyquery cultural the culturaland can moveus beyondthe presentim-
representations ofnaturein termsoftheirbasisin bio- passe thatrendersso muchofourintellectualactivity
physicalreality-and(2) natureas objectivereality irrelevant. Somesee thepossibility fora firmresolution
the factthatmuchofwhatsome constructivists refer (e.g.,Wilsoni998). It seemsmorelikelythatambiguity
to as culturallyconstructed is indeedalso a productof is inherentin the problem,forexample,in Harding's
biophysicalreality, yetconstructivistscan legitimately (i998:i9) strongobjectivity, in whichthereis "notjust
querythe representations of this objectiverealityin one adequatestandardforknowledge"butnot all pro-
termsoftheirbasisin history orpolitics. posedstandards "are equallygood."The urgency ofthe
Escobarsays that approachingthe problemof hu- currentcrisis in human-environment relationsde-
man-environment relationsrequiresthatwe makeex- mandsthatwe continueto workforlinksbetweenthe
plicitour"ecologicalattachments." Shouldn'tthisin- culturalandbiophysical worldsthatwill allowthemto
clude being as explicitas possible about our own coexist.
assumptionsand tryingto understand to whatextent
theyarebasedon valuesthatcan be validatedthrough
social negotiation and to whatextenton assumptions JONATHAN D. HILL
about "biophysicalreality"which can be framedas Department ofAnthropology, SouthernIllinois
hypothesesand testedwith empiricaldata? Escobar University,Carbondale, Ill. 6290I-45 02, U.S.A.
does notexplicitly addressthevaluesthatunderliethe I5 v 98
variousapproacheshe discusses,most important his
own,and theextentto whichtheydetermine theout- Escobarhas donea finejobofoutlining someofthema-
look on human-environment relations. jorcomponents ofan antiessentialist politicalecology.
Second,we needto tryhardernotto essentialize.Es- Key elementsof his theoryare the threenaturere-
cobar'sthree"regimes"of natureseem to perpetuate gimes-organic,capitalist, andtechno--understood as
stereotypicalthinking fromoneperspective. To say,for dynamic,interactive articulations of biologyand his-
example,thatin theorganicregime"natureis not'ma- tory.Escobar'spoliticalecologyis specifically designed
nipulated'" (quotingStrathem)ignoresthe manyem- toovercomepastlimitations ofecologicalanthropology
piricaldata suggesting that premodempeoples have suchas thetendency to circumvent processesofmean-
takenan activerolein "governing" natureto servetheir ing construction and theirrelationsto practicalusage
own consumptionneeds (e.g.,Steadman I995). and thefailureto situatesuchcomplexesofmeanings-
Whileallowingthatlocal knowledgemay be com- uses in largercontextsofhistory and power.
plex,Escobarprivilegesthe knowledge-as-practice in- EscobardrawsheavilyfromSouthAmericanethnol-
terpretationas a contrastto modemknowledge, ignor- ogyforexamplesoforganicregimesofnature.Although
ing the abundant literaturesuggestingthat local these examplesare usefulillustrations of organicre-
knowledge maybe a complexblendofpractice,empiri- gimes,thereare otherworksin theSouthAmericanist
cism,andtheory (e.g.,ScoonesandThompsonI 994).He literature thatprovideclearermodelsofhowan ecologi-
essentializesmodemscientificepistemology as well. cal concernforhuman-environmental relationscan be
One oftheimportant pointsthatRichardsmakesin the fusedwithquestionsofmeaningconstruction and his-
chapterEscobarcitesis thatmodemscientific knowl- toricalinteractionsbetweencompetingorganicand
edgeis epistemologically complex(e.g.,RichardsI993), capitalistregimes.NormanWhitten(I978) arguedfor
andthismeansthatit maynot'befundamentally differ-an understanding ofindigenous cosmologiesoflowland
entfromlocal knowledge. Ecuadoras a dynamicset of ecologicalmasterimages
Third,our critiquesof variousepistemological ap- throughwhichlocal peoplesinterpreted and acted in
proachesneed to contribute to praxis.How can Esco- collectiveoppositionto capitalistpracticesthatthreat-
bar'sprogram forpoliticalecologymakea difference in enedtheregion'stropicalrainforests withcatastrophic
termsofsocial and environmental change?If the task collapse.Whitten's elegantanalysiscontainedall theel-
ofthispoliticalecologyis analysisleadingto "morejust ements for a critical,historicaltheoryof political
and sustainablesocial and ecologicalrelations,"then ecology.
we mustrecognizethattheconceptsof"just"and"sus- The challengesandopportunities posedbyWhitten's
tainable"are subjective.An important partofpraxisis uniquesynthesis ofinterpretive, ecological,and politi-
encouraging thediscussionofthesevaluesfromdiffer-cal approacheshad surprisingly little influenceon
ent culturalperspectives(Cleveland and MurrayI997). mainstream ecologicalanthropology in the i980s. One
Ifwe can agree,at leastpartially, on what"justice" exceptionwas myown attemptto buildon Whitten's
and "sustainability" mean,how do we get there?Un- synthesisin an essayon ritualproduction of environ-
 ESCOBAR AfterNatureI i9

mentalhistory amongtheArawakanfishing and horti- written in termsoftheneoliberal rationalityofglobaliz-

cultural societies of northwestern Amazonia (Hill ingcapitalism."Escobar'spoliticalecologyis a valuable
i989). In thatessay,I exploredritualproductions ofen- attemptto setthestagefora newecologicalanthropol-
vironmental historyas a double-sided processof exer- ogy thatwill allow researchers to addressecological
cisingritualpowerthatentailed(iI constructing histor- problemsin conjunctionwith questionsof meaning
ical consciousnessthroughuse of names of places, construction as wellas theproblems ofcolonialismand
naturalspecies,and geographic featuresas metaphors nationalism.
forthe development of politicalrelationsamongdis-
tinctpeoplesand (2) imbuingthenaturalenvironment
ofnonhumanspeciesand objectswithspecifically hu- DOROTHY L. HODGSON
man bodilyand social meanings.By focusingon pro- Department ofAnthropology, Rutgers, The State
cessesofmeaningconstruction andpowerthatunderlie University ofNew Jersey, New Brunswick, N.J.
environmental histories,myargument anticipatedEs- 08903-0270, U.S.A. (dhodgson@rci.rutgers.edu).
cobar'scall forstudiesof local knowledgeas the con- 29 VI 98
struction of"livinglandscapes"through narrativesand
othercommunicative genresas well as the"hybridiza- In an admirable tointerweave
effort theculturalandthe
tion"ofdiscoursesfromorganicand capitalistregimes. biologicalinunderstandings ofnature,Escobarproposes
PerhapsEscobar'sterms"biology"and "history"are an intriguing andprovocative theoreticalframework for
analogousto or even homologouswithmy"socializa- whathe termsan antiessentialist politicalecology.As
tionofnature"(orconstruction ofa culturallandscaper analyticmodels which specifycertaininterrelation-
and"naturalization ofsociety"(ormetaphors ofanimal shipsbetweenkey featuresof ethnographic data,the
nature,objects,and placesas a modeofhistoricaldis- threenatureregimesthathe identifies areusefulheuris-
course)? tic devices.Not onlydo theyenableanthropologists to
Escobar'stripartitemodelofpoliticalecologyleaves generalizeandcategorize theempiricaldataforcompar-
open a majorgap in the historicalspace betweenor- ative purposesbut theyalertus to relationships we
ganicandcapitalistnatureregimes:colonialism.To fix mightotherwisehaveoverlooked.
this problem,one mightturnto Michael Taussig's I am troubled, however,byEscobar'ssuggestion that
(II987)conceptofthecolonialmodeofproducing reality each natureregimerequiresits own distinctformof
and constructions of natureas a hostile,dangerous analysis.This partofhis argument seemstautological,
entitythat must be coerced,tamed,dominated,and sinceeachformofanalysis(anditscorresponding meth-
in some cases eliminated.Corresponding to thiscolo- odology)will necessarily "discover"theverynaturere-
nialistnatureregimeis an ideologyoflocal peoplesas gimeit setsouttoanalyze.The methodsandparadigms
subhumananimals whose labor can be extracted of the anthropology of local knowledge,forexample,
throughdebt fetishism,psychologicalterror,brute will elicit"local" meaningsanduses ofnaturebutpro-
force,and evengenocide.The rubberboom (ca. i86o- vide littleinformation on historicalchangesin such
i920) in lowland South America providesa tragicillus- meaningsand uses or thecontemporary supralocalpo-
trationof the colonialistregime:entireindigenous litical-economic contexts(Escobardoes note the need
peoplesvanishedin therubbercamps,and groupsthat to explore"local" contextsof power)that influence
triedto fleeto safetywereoftenhunteddownand de- theirproduction. Consequently, the "findings" (which
stroyed likegameanimals.This was a periodwhenthe foreground meaningand use and overlookchangeand
bloodandbodiesofindigenous Amazonianpeoplespaid broader"nonlocal"context)will lookmuchlikean or-
fortheindustrializing nations'thirstforrawlatexand ganicregime,theveryregimethatwas firstpresumed
theindebtedness ofLatinAmerica'snewrepublics.Al- to existandthusguidedthechoiceofmethodology and
thoughboom-and-bust cyclesliketherubberboomand analysis.How do we, forexample,accountforthose
the so-called Guano Age (ca. I845-75) in South peoplewhonowemphasizeandoccasionallyexaggerate
Americaweredrivenbyemerging industrial capitalism andeven"market"their"organic"naturetoacquirepo-
in Europeand theUnitedStates,theirlocal manifesta- liticalcapital,takeadvantage offinancialopportunities,
tionsarebestunderstood as articulations ofcolonialist orprotectlandsandlivelihoodsin interaction withcap-
and organicregimesin contextsof weak, heavilyin- italistintrusions, globalcampaigns fortheenvironment
debtednation-states. On a globalscale,the colonialist and "indigenous"rights,biodiversity prospectors,and
regimeof naturecan be interpreted as ecologicalpre- so forth? Surelymorethanan anthropology ofknowl-
dationoforganic,tropical"nature-cultures" bytechno- edgeis requiredto revealthesecriticaldimensions.
logicallyadvancedcapitalistregimesbasedin thenorth- Of course,EscobarwouldprobablyreplythatwhatI
em hemisphere. The processcontinuestodayin many have just describedis an exampleof "hybridnature"
ThirdWorldcountriesthatrelyon primary exportsas similartothesocialmovements oftherainforest which
sources of revenue.FernandoCoronil's concept oi he discusses.But whenwoulda natureregimenot be
"nature-exportingsocieties" (I977:7) provides a valu- hybrid? Does somepristineorganicnatureexistsome-
able explorationof such neocolonialismin contexts wherein theworld,untouchedbycapitalism, imperial-
wherenations"are frequently recastin theirold colo- ism,globalmedia,orotherprocessesofcontact,change,
nial roleas sourcesofprimary products, a rolenowre- and challenge?Similarly, arecapitalistnaturesortech-
201 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume40, Numberi, Februaryi999

nonaturescompletelybereftof all featuresof organic ture-postnatural nature-in whichnature,interfered

nature,suchas "native"ritualsandpracticeswhiches- withbyculture,capital,and technology, loses its con-
tablishandregulatecontinuities betweenthebiophysi- stitutiveessence.In fact,"after-nature" emergedwhen
cal, human,and supernatural worlds?Moreimportant culturebegannaming,symbolizing, and signifying na-
in termsofmyargument here,how wouldone discern ture.Laterin history, "culturednature"was displaced,
a natureregime'shybrid natureifoneemployed onlyits externalized, and recodified by strategies ofcapitalac-
designated methodology? cumulationandbyscientific andtechnological domina-
One resultofthiscircularself-confirmation ofpropo- tion.The "reinvention ofnature"todayis a social re-
sition,methodology, andconclusionis therefore to bol- sponse to the environmental crisisproducedby this
sterandreify thedifferences betweenthethreeregimes. domination.
First,itpresumesthatwe canonly"know"eachregime The nonessentialist character ofpoliticalecologydis-
in a particular way,requiring a distinctmethodology.placestheintrinsic valueofnatureas a modelforsocial
As a result,we are hamperedfromdiscovering, much organization anda basisfora politicsofnature.It takes
less analyzing,the nebulousborders,"articulations," us beyondthe naturalismso dearto conservationism
and overlapsbetweenthe regimes.Instead,epistemo- andtranscends thediscoursesofdeepecologyandsocial
logical and methodologicalboundariesare created ecologythat have become the dominantideologyof
whichforeground and reinforcetheirdifferences rather ecologism.Escobar'smap of natureregimesdiscovers
thantheirsimilaritiesand connections.Second,each powerstrategies producedbytheculturization, capital-
formofanalysisemphasizesdistinctnotionsofculture, ization,and technologization of nature,as well as
history,and space foreach natureregime,heighteningpowerrelationsthatcutacrossalternative strategiesfor
the contrastsbetweenthem.Briefly, organicregimes the appropriation of these nature/culture/economy/
seemprofoundly "cultural,"grounded in "local" space, technology matrices.Thus, Escobar'sapproachviews
and ahistorical,capitalistregimesare preeminentlythe reappropriation of naturehybridizedby cultural
"historical,""global,"andsupracultural, andtechnona- meanings,economic valorization,and technological
turescan existin a virtualspace seemingly unfetteredtransformation and builds a standpointforanalyzing
by culture or history. although
Finally, Escobar is care- thedivergent interestsinvolvedin thereconstruction of
fulto includeall theappropriate caveatsaboutthehis- natureas a conditionanda potentialforsustainablede-
toricity,contemporaneity, and fluidity ofeach regime, velopment.
his designatedformsof analysisperpetuateand rein- Whencultureplacesitsimprint on theevolutionand
forceproblematic hierarchiesbetweenthem.Thus "na- appropriation ofnature,naturebeginsto departfromits
tive"understandings ofthemeaningsandusesofnature organicessence. Thus, the organicregimebecomes
in ruralcommunitiesin the ThirdWorldare catego- "culturednature."WhileEscobaruses "culture"as a
rizedas "local knowledge," whilethoseofEuro-Ameri-moregeneralcategorythat encompassesthe organic
can intellectualsare"science."Yetsurelytechnonatureand includescapital and technology, in my view it
is as culturallyembeddedand producedas organicna- wouldbe moreappropriate conceptually andpolitically
ture? to renamehis "organicnature"as "culturednature"
To circumvent theepistemological andmethodologi-and characterizecapital and technologyregimesas
cal quandaryI havedescribed, I wouldproposea more anticultural and antinatural, as theytendto homoge-
holisticmethodology whichintegrates aspectsof each nizenatureanddestroy culturalorganization anddiver-
natureregime'sproposed"politicalecology."No mat- sity.
terhow distinctits defining features, each naturere- Withcapitalistnature,natureis recodified andvalued
gimeshouldbe analyzedin a mannerattentiveto its as capitalto be appropriated by the economicorder;
cultural,biological,social, historical,political,eco- however,naturemaintainsits organicessence.This is
nomic,spatial,and artificial/virtual facetsand interre- lostwiththetechnologization oflife.Todaytechnology
lationships.Onlybycombining, amplifying, andevenly has penetrated the veryessence of biologicalnature.
applying theformsofanalysisdescribed byEscobarcan Withgeneticengineering and biotechnology we can no
we be surethattheresulting regimeis a productofour longerassign to naturethe determination of evolu-
data, not a preordained consequenceof our mode of tion-the organization of the biologicalorderand the
analysis. realmoflife.The hybridizing ofnatureand technology
have producednew entities,wherethe laws ofnature
and theworkings oftechnology combineto designlife,
ENRIQUE LEFF transforming thecoreoftherealand generating a new
UNEP, VirreyesI55, Lomas Virreyes,10ooo Mexico, complexontologicalorder.
D.F., Mexico (ElefI@latino.rolac.unep.mx).i8 vii 98 Natureregimesinterrelate degreesandin
to different
ways.The hybridizing
conflictive ofnature,economics,
Escobardevelopsa politicalecologicalapproachto "na- technology, culture,and knowledgeare crosscutby
tureregimes"definedas a complexemergentset of powerrelations.However,theseresultnotin different
powerrelationsin whichnatureis hybridized by cul- strategiesofhybrid natures(actuallynaturecanhaveno
ture,economics,and technology. One ofhis mostsug- strategy ofits own)but in new strategies forthereap-
gestivepointsis his antiessentialist approachto na- propriation ofhybridized naturesin alternative scenar-
 ESCOBAR AfterNature 12i

ios forsustainabledevelopment. Economicglobaliza- globaleconomy.However,technology has no intrinsic

tionemphasizesthe capitalistregimeofnature,while endsorrationality. It followsalternative economicand
local strategies forsustainabledevelopment are based social strategies.I thinkEscobarplacestoo muchhope
on natureregimessignifiedby different matricesof in technonature as thedriving forceenablingtheprolif-
"culturalrationality." Capitalistand culturednature erationof heterogenesis, alterity,and diversity. The
regimesimplydifferent and alternative policiesforna- goal ofreopening evolutiontowardbiodiversity should
turetechnification as wellas fortheproduction andap- be basedon culture,democracy, and politicsassigning
propriation ofknowledge. Thus,thepoliticalecological different meaningsto nature,respectto otherness, and
approachto rain-forest social movementsfocuseson value to diversity.
theirnewstrategies forappropriation ofnature,culture, Escobar'spaperis a veryvaluablecontribution to this
and technologyin confrontation with the dominant new fieldofontological, epistemological, and political
globalizedcapitalist-technonature strategies. inquiryintoa hybridized and evermoredifferentiated
Beyondantinaturalism, antiessentialism rejectsre- and complexworld.
ductionistepistemological positionsin analyzingna-
ture-society relations.The hybridizing of nature,cul-
ture,economy,and technologyresultin articulated KAY MILTON
processesthatare not reducibleto ecologicallaws,to Department ofSocial Anthropology, Queen's
the determinations of the market,to thermodynamicUniversity, BelfastBT7 INN, Northern Ireland.
lawsofnature,ortosymbolicprocessesofculturalorga- I VI 98
nization.This epistemological positionis fertile in pro-
motingthe articulationof sciencesand a dialogueof I foundthispaperdifficult to understand, and mycom-
knowledgeto accountforthe interlinking of differentmentsare an attemptto explainwhy.The readercan
processesandknowledge beyondbiocentrism, econom- judgewhetherthedifficulty is theauthor'sfaultor my
icism,and anthropocentrism. own.I am perfectly willingto acceptthatit maybe the
Escobar'sapproachprovidesthe meansto articulate latterand to learnfromtheexperience.
theontologicaland epistemological processeswhereby Mymaindifficulty lies inseparating Escobar'sanalyt-
natureregimesare hybridizedand the politicalpro- ical framework fromthe object(s)of his analysis.He
cesses wherebytheseregimesare appropriated. Thus, identifiesdiverse"regimes"of natureand speculates
political ecologyis based on a political epistemologyof aboutthewaysin whichtheycombinein politicalsitu-
nature.However,politicalecologycannotencompass ations. One expectsto see an analyticalframework
thestudyofthemanifold articulations ofhistory, biol- whichis clearlydistinguishable fromanyparticular re-
ogy,culture,andknowledge as Escobarsuggests.Politi- gimeand capableofencompassing all ofthem.On the
cal ecologydealsmoreconcretely withthepowerrela- faceof it, a constructivist, "antiessentialist" perspec-
tions involvedin currentsocial movementsforthe tiveseemsappropriate, foranthropologists andotherso-
reappropriation of nature,culture,technology,and cial scientistshave been usingsuch a perspective for
knowledge. similarpurposesforsomeyears.Buta constructivist po-
It seemssomewhatparadoxicalto referto thesehy- sitionmust,byitsownlogic,suspendjudgement on the
bridentitiesproducedbythearticulation ofthebiologi- contentof whatis beinganalysed.This is the central
cal, the cultural,and the technologicalas naturere- dilemmaofconstructivism: how to studypeople'scon-
gimeswhile at the same time tryingto denaturalize structedviews of naturewhile suspending judgement
nature.Fromthisperspective, callingthemoreintegral on what natureis (forto prejudgeit would be, effec-
connectionbetweencultureand biology"organic"is tively,to denyits constructedness).
misleading.The biologicalis organic;cultureis sym- Thisleadsmetoaskinwhatsensetheregimesidenti-
bolic. Thus,politicalecologytranscends ecologismto fiedby Escobarare regimesofnature.Forexample,if
envisionsymbolically mediatedproductionrelations. the "separationofnatureand societyis one ofthe es-
Inviewingtheorganicas "theunfolding ofa totalgener- sentialfeatures ofmodemsocieties"(emphasisadded),
ativefield"as Escobarsuggests we runtheriskoflosing in whatsenseis naturewhichhas beeninterfered with
the specificity of symbolicprocessesand powerrela- bysocietystillnature?Modemcapitalistsmightcall it
tions,viewingthemthrough thelens ofa unifiedfield nature,but theyhave no obligationto conform to the
ofbioculturalrelations. demandsofanalyticalrigour and,inanycase,mightnot
Escobar'snatureregimesshouldbe viewedas alterna- agreewithEscobar'sstatement aboutmodernsocieties.
tive nature-culture-technology regimes,eitherdomi- Butthelabelis notpresented as partofcapitalistvocab-
natedbyeconomicrationality orguidedbydifferent so- ulary."Capitalistnature,""organicnature,"and"tech-
cial strategiesfortheappropriation ofthesehybridized nonature"arelabelsoftheanalyst'schoosingandcreate
conditionsand potentialsforsustainabledevelopment,theimpression thatthereis something called"nature"
mobilizedby rain-forest social movementsand other ofwhichtheseare culturalvariants.Is thisantiessen-
emergentpeasant and indigenouspeople's organiza- tialism?
tions. This is one featureofEscobar'sanalysiswhichdoes
Today,technology seems the most efficient means not squarewithmy understanding of constructivism.
for dematerializing productionand ecologizingthe Anotheris his questionof whetherthe category"na-
22 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 40, Number x, Februaryi999

ture" is susceptibleto antiessentialist analysis: "If landscapes.Within"ecology"I includematerialculture

seemingly solid categorieslike societyand thesubject and technology, ecologicalstructures and processesin
have been subjectedto antiessentialist critique,why landscapes,and the compositionand statusof biotic
has natureprovenso resistant?"What sort of con- communities,includinghumans,in place(s). Ecosys-
structivism is itthatcanspeakof"seemingly solidcate- temsincludethelivingbeingsin a placeas wellas bed-
gories"?Is not the underlyingassumptionof con- rock,soil,and water;theyencompasstheplayofland-
structivismthat there are no solid categories?A formswiththerhythms oflightand dark,wetand dry,
constructivist to whom any categoryseems solid is hotand cold,and thecomingsand goingsoftheseem-
surelya confusedconstructivist. In addition,is notthe inglyinfinitevarietiesof life.The social relationsof
suggestion thatnaturehasprovenresistant to thistreat- powerincludebothconflictand cooperationand refer
ment denied by the veryanthropological debate to not only to power-over but also to power-with (see
whichEscobar'spaperis a contribution? Schmitti996),wherepowermayderivefromsolidarity
The centralquestionaddressed byEscobaris "Is there as wellas difference andsolidaritymaystemfromiden-
a viewofnaturethatgoesbeyondthetruismthatnature tity,affinity, orcontingent coalitionsaroundparticular
is constructed to theorizethemanifold formsin which shared interests(see Harding i986, Haraway i99i, and
it is culturally constructed andsociallyproduced, while Fraser i989).
fullyacknowledging thebiophysical basis ofits consti- Escobararguesthatnatureis a legitimate butnotex-
tution?"My answerwouldbe no, forwe wouldbe ad- clusiveconcernofontologyand epistemology and that
mitting biophysicality as theessenceofnature,thereby a constructivist approachin politicalecologyneednot
negatingthe quest foran antiessentialist, fullycon- meana denialofbiophysicalreality.I wouldadd that
structivist understanding and denyingthe "truism" theontologicaland epistemological crisisofnaturehas
thatnatureis constructed. We couldonlydo whatEsco- to do withhumansas beingsand ourbeing-in-relation
bar seeks to do by steppingback froma strictlycon- to otherspeciesand to each other.The exploration of
structivistposition and accepting what Ingold (i992) this"rupture"mustextendto therulesofrelation,re-
andothershaveargued,thatat leastsomeofwhatpeo- drawingtheboundariesofnestedcategoriesofbiologi-
ple knowabouttheworldis notconstructed butgener- cal and social entities.Whatis "natural"is also really
atedin someotherway. a matterof what is necessaryand inevitableversus
Whatthesecommentsamountto is a suspicionthat whatis possible,permissible, and malleable.Escobar's
Escobar'sprojectis doomedbyitsownparameters. Na- inquiryraisesquestionsaboutintrinsic, andin-
relative,
ture cannotbe "theorizedwithinan antiessentialiststrumental value in both"social" and "biological"do-
framework withoutmarginalizing the biological,"be- mainsandtheproper unitsofanalysis,sitesofinterven-
cause antiessentialism marginalizeseverything. This tion, and pointsof encounterbetweenculturesand
suspicionis supportedby Ellen's (i996) unashamedly ecologies.
essentialistanalysisof "the cognitivegeometry ofna- The conceptofsocial regimesofnaturethatcoexist
ture,"whichbeginsfromthepositionthatnatureis es- and interactwithbiologicalrealitiesis a powerful and
sentially(and ironically,in the contextof Escobar's usefulinnovation, but the typology is bothintriguing
analysis)a hybridofthreedimensionsand arguesthat and troubling. Althoughthecategories aremeantto be
thismodelcan be usedto identify in anyculturea cate- relational,not essential,and theydo coexist,overlap,
gorythatmightbe translatedas "nature."Escobaris and co-produce each other,theirnamestendto evoke
also treating natureas a cross-cultural category, buthis specifichistoricalassociations."Capitalist nature"
analyticalframework does notseemto be equippedfor calls to minda perioddominated bymechanicalandin-
the task.To returnto myinitialpoint,I thinkhe has dustrialtechnology and reducesthe visibilityof link-
confused thatframework withtheobjectofhisanalysis. ages (bydesign)and leakages(bydefault)ofa capitalist
It mayor maynotbe truethat"Naturehas ceased to ethosandlogicintoorganicandtechno-natures.Three
be essentiallyanything formostpeople,"but thiscan- othertypologies unevenlyembeddedwithinthe three
notbe thecase fortheanalystwhoseeksto understand regimesmaysuggestalternatives: (i) technologies: bio-
people'sculturalconstructions 6fnature.Ifitwere,how organic,mechanistic,and information/communica-
shouldthatanalystknowwhereto begin? tion-based;(2) ontologies:integrated (social-in-nature),
divided (nature/society dualism), and recombinant
(cyborg/synthesis of"organic"and"artificial" natures);
DIANNE E. ROCHELEAU (3) consciousness:immersion(humans-in-nature), in-
45 HollywoodSt.,#1, Worcester, Mass. ox6xo,U.S.A. strumentality (differentiatedhumansusingnature), and
(drockyBma.ultranet.com). 29 vii 98 virtuosity(reintegrated humanscreating withnatureor
transcendent humansre-creating themselvesand na-
Escobarchallengesus to articulatethe biologicaland ture).
socialsciencesin a noveltypeofenvironmental inquiry Escobaralso postulatesdistinctresearchapproaches
and proposesto stretchpoliticalecologyto encompass forthethreeregimes,but ontology, epistemology, and
thisarticulation. I concurin principlebut advocatea technologyare all at play in these shiftingfieldsof
slightly narrower focuson thesocialrelationsofpower power-nature, and I suggestthatwe studyeach regime
and the formation and functioning of ecologiesand withall thetoolsofphilosophy and"naturalscience"as
 ESCOBAR AfterNature I 23

well as all his threesuggested socialscienceparadigms. recombination ofseparateorganisms intonew entities

Thereis scopefornarrative analysisanddeconstructionas a majorevolutionary strategythatgaveus life-as-we-
ofthesystemsofgendered power/knowledge embedded know-it. Politicalecologyrepresents a promising siteof
in locallanguageandpracticein manynon-Western sci- engagement betweentheseeclecticbutconvergent bod-
ences.Thereis goodreasonto illuminatethenational ies of research,and Escobar'sworkon hybridnatures
and international politicaleconomiccontextforbio- mapsa productive pointofencounter at thatsite.The
prospecting as wellas deconstructing theculturalcodes workshe citescombineto providea glimpseofa syn-
of its scientificpractice.Bothdeconstruction and eth- thesisin progress.
nographies can clarifytheculturalmanipulation ofen- One pathforward clearlyleads to the fusionof cul-
vironmental ideasand imagesbycapital(andstates)to tural politicsand social movements(in place) with
serveeconomicends.Andwhyleave out thebiology? studiesoftheregimesofnature.Anotheroptionis the
We needto conductmaterialecologicalanalysesofthe analysisof distinctsocial and environmental move-
sociallyrestructured movementof energyand materi- ments,acrossplaces,grounded at verydifferent points
als,ofthecomplexwebsofinteractions, bothobligatory in hybridregimesof nature,connectedthroughemer-
andoptional,betweenandamongspecieslivingin rela- gentnetworks(new kindsof places in noncontiguous
tion withinand acrossplaces,all implicatedas both spaces).The latteroftenreflectsharedinterests in spe-
cause and effect in social relationsofpower.Social re- cificecologicalprocessesandproperties andtheirinter-
gimesofnaturehavebiologicaland physicalas well as sectionwithidentities andaffinities.Yet anotherdirec-
social consequences,and we should documenttheir tionis to link theoriesof complexity in biologywith
materialmanifestations. socialtheoriesofpowerto developa situated,practical
The conceptof hybridnaturesis also a significantpoliticalecology.I proposethatwe see ourselvesas
contribution. The Afro-Colombian activistexemplifies involvedin social and biologicalmodes of being-in-
peopleholdingvariousnaturesin tension,a phenome- relationandthinkofecologiesas sociallyinscribed and
nonwhichextendswellbeyondthefrontiers oftherain sociallyimplicatedcollectivitiesof beings-in-relation
forest.For example, Steingraber(I997), who traverses (relatedentities,includingpeople),in place(s).To get
the chemicallyendangeredecologies of contrastingbeyondthe implieddualismof hybridity I would call
landscapesof the East Coast and Midwestern United uponthelanguageofcomplexity theory-contingency,
States,holdsmanynaturesin tensionas she contem- indeterminacy, simultaneity, and multiplesubjectivi-
platesthesaturation of"organic"naturebythechemi- ties(byothernames),all compatible withtherecentex-
cal pollutionof a "capitalist"one and confronts the plorationsof poststructuralist social sciences."Land-
threatsand promisesof techno-nature in the material scapes,""ecologies,"and "environments" all suggesta
andideologicalresponsesofmedicalandenvironmentalplurality of sitesand situationswherea varietyofbe-
scienceto widespread cancer.Criticalculturalecology, ingsrelateto each otherand to surrounding spacesand
ethnobotany, and environmental historiesof forests the"natural"and thenecessary areembeddedin a rich
constitute anotherlineofrecentworkthatcouldbe in- fieldofchoices,possibilities, and potentialrecombina-
corporated intoEscobar'sarguments forhybrid natures. tions.All of theseelementsare buildingblocksfora
DaryllPosey,ArturoGomez-Pampa, WilliamDenevan, nonessentialist andpracticalpoliticalecologythatdeals
ChristinePadoch,Paul Richards,Melissa Leach and with difference and diversity,embracescontingency,
JamesFairhead,NancyPeluso,SusannaHecht,David change,and uncertainty, and acceptsthe challengeto
Demerritt,Bruce Willems-Braun, myself,and many act,inplace(s),in theeveryday ecologiesofan imperfect
othershavedocumented thesocialconstruction ofma- and complexworld.
terial and metaphoricalforestsby distinctgroups
withinand acrossplaces.
BridgesacrossthegulfbetweensocialconstructivismSUSAN C. STONICH
andbiologicalrealitiescanalsobe builtfromthebiolog- Department ofAnthropology, Environmental Studies
ical sideandgrounded in manypointsbetween.Recent Program, University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara,
workbytheecologistTimothyAllenand collaborators Calif. 93 xo6, U.S.A. (sstonich@gte.net).i vii 98
(AllenandHoekstraI993,Ahl,Allen,andLerneri996)
in psychology, forestry, and ecologyconvergeswith Escobararguesforan antiessentialist politicalecology
manyoftheworkscitedin thisarticle,includingpsy- stemming fromthebeliefthatnatureis culturally and
chologicaltheoriesof relationalidentityand open- sociallyconstructed. Fromthisperspective cultureand
endeddevelopment processesas wellas ecologicaltheo- especiallydiscourseareseenas activeagentsthatcreate
riesofcomplexity. The ecologistDaniel Botkin(i990) andproducenatureas well as frameknowledge and re-
hasboldlystatedthatthenatureofthe2 ist century will latedconflictsassociatedwithnature.Thisconstructiv-
be a naturethatwe make,inviting a debateon thena- istapproach, alongwithitsemphasison discursive for-
tureof"we" oursenseofourselvesand ourrelations mations,has addeda significant criticaldimensionto
to each otherand otherbeingsunderdifferent con- muchof the earlierworkofpoliticalecologists.Espe-
structsof nature.Likewise,the biologicaltheoriesof ciallyimportant havebeenconstructivist examinations
LynnMargulisblurthe edgesof cells,organisms, and of the roleof "science" in environmental campaigns/
species.Shepresents extraordinary examplesofcreative debatesand the role of discoursein framing environ-
241 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume40, Numberx, Februaryi999

mentalconflictsrelatedto development (especiallyin abilitiesofactorsto controlaccess to and use ofenvi-

theThirdWorld).Despitethesecontributions, thereare ronmental resources, to transfer environmental riskto
criticallimitationsassociatedwiththe strongidealist otheractors,and to affectcertainpoliciesand projects
positioninherent in constructivist
arguments. First,the (oftenpartlythrough thecontrolofpublicdiscourse).
concept"cultural(and/orsocial) construction of na- EricWolfwas amongthefirstto use theterm"politi-
ture"can overestimate the powerof humanbehavior cal ecology"in his 1972 critiqueofculturalecologyand
and actionsto create,transform, or otherwisecontrol ecologicalanthropology, in whichhe emphasizedthe
environmental forceswhile simultaneously underesti- need to contextualize local ecologicalrealitieswithin
matingthe transformative powerof the environmentthebroaderpoliticaleconomy.Sincethen,a numberof
(ornature).Unfortunately, thiskindofimbalanceis too anthropologists have been activelyengagedin shaping
commonin the workof anthropologists, sociologists, thisvibrantfield-MarianneSchmink, PeterLittle,Mi-
and otherswith littleaptitude,knowledge,training, chaelHorowitz,MichaelPainter, BarbaraJohnston, and
and/orexperience in thenaturalandphysicalsciences. myself, tonamea few.Manyoftheanthropologists who
The complexrepercussions of the recentEl Nifio- sharea politicalecologicalperspective also sharesev-
SouthernOscillation(ENSO) is a forceful exampleof eralothercharacteristics: theyareengagedinenhancing
thepoweroftheenvironment as an activeagentcapable anthropology's rolein understanding and solvingreal-
ofprovoking widespread humansocial and culturalre- worldproblems-includingincreasinganthropology's
sponses.A criticalpoliticalecologymustbalancethe contribution to policyformation; theyhavehadat least
cultural/socialconstruction ofnaturewitha meaning- some training and/orexperiencebeyondanthropology
fulconsideration (andanalysis)ofthenaturalconstruc- and even the social sciences; they work comfort-
tionoftheculturalandthesocial.Mindfulofthiscriti- ablyand effectively in broadinterdisciplinary settings;
cism,Escobaracknowledges thisproblematic, although and theyare committedto integrating soundscholar-
the approachadvancedin his articledoes not accom- ship withpractice.These sharedcharacteristics have
plish this.Second,an overemphasis on constructivistfacilitatedtheirabilityto integratenewerecological
discourseanalysismay diminishthe concernforthe concepts(e.g.,instability, chaoticfluctu-
disequilibria,
materialissuesthatfirstprovoked theemergence ofpo- ations,environmental "surprises") intopoliticalecolog-
liticalecology.Fromtheperspective ofa politicalecolo- ical analysisandinterdisciplinary efforts
withbiophysi-
gist,theimportance ofunderstanding discursiveforma- cal colleagues.Escobar'sargumentwill undoubtedly
tionslies preciselyin whatthatunderstanding reveals generatemuchvigorousand fruitful debateamongpo-
aboutthebehaviors ofthediverseactorsinvolvedin so- litical ecologists,as has much of his previouswork.
cial and environmental conflicts. However,it is doubtful thatit will generatemanycon-
To a greatextent,Escobar'sarticleis tangentialto vertsamongpoliticalecologistswithouta morerigor-
ratherthanbuildingon thecurrent stateofthefieldof ous synthesis oftherelationships betweentheory, dis-
politicalecology-muchofwhichis alreadyquiteanti- course,behavior,and practice.
essentialistin character.In his briefsummaryof the
emergenceof politicalecology,Escobarquicklydis-
missesmostofwhathas beendonein politicalecology
and underestimates theimportant contributions ofan- Reply
thropologists to this evolving,diverse,and interdisci-
research
plinary field.SincetheI970s, political
ecology
has advancedan interdisciplinary approachto complex ARTURO ESCOBAR
human-environmental interactions, especiallythose Amherst, Mass., U.S.A. 5 x 98
relatedto economicdevelopment in theThirdWorld.A
primary objectivehas beento understand theunderly- This is a veryrich set of commentaries, and I have
ingcauses ofmounting humanand environmental cri- learneda lotfromit.Practically all ofthecomments are
ses-especially in the Third World-and figureout quite pertinent and significant. Whileepistemological
waysto ameliorateorelimina'te them.Althoughefforts concernsseemto be themostprominent, thecommen-
to definethe evolvingfieldofpoliticalecologyare far tariesalso addressimportant aspectsrelatedto thege-
fromcomplete,anthropologists, geographers, political nealogyofpoliticalecology,methodandfocus,and,last
scientists,andotherscholarsgenerally use thepolitical but not least, terminology. There are clear pointsof
ecologyframework to understandhow environmen-agreement withandvalidationofthemainthrustofthe
talandpoliticalforcesinteractto affectsocialandenvi- paper,but thereare also strongdisagreements and
ronmental changesthrough theactionsofvarioussocial pointsof tension.It wouldbe tempting to reducethe
actorsoperating at different
scales (levelsof analysis). disagreements to pervasivedichotomiesin the fieldof
Recently,politicalecologistshave expandedtheirdo- environmental studiesandbeyond-forinstance,ideal-
mainto includeconsiderations ofhistory, gender,social istversusmaterialist, Foucauldianversusmarxist, real-
movements,and discursiveformations. Much of the ist versusinterpretivist, essentialistversusconstruc-
analysiscenterson theroleofpowerin mediatingthe tivist,and social scienceversusnaturalscience.Some
relationsamongdiverseinterestgroupsand/orsocial/ ofthesedichotomies arecertainly at playin thereading
culturalactors.Such poweris manifestin therelative strategies ofthevariouscommentators, a reflectionof
 ESCOBAR AfterNature |a25

theprofound and seemingly intractable binarismsthat some of these divides(realist/constructivist, political

still plaguethe modemsciences(ideal/material, pro- economy/poststructuralism) is increasing.In thisvein,
duction/signification, meaning/practice, and so forth). I fullyacceptHill's questioning ofmyfailureto include
Yet the disagreements persistevenin cases wherethe worksthatI usuallyassociatemorewiththepolitical
dichotomies do notoperate. economyorientation ofpoliticalecology,suchas Nor-
It wouldseemappropriate to startwithcontestedno- manWhitten's. This absenceis themoreglaringsince
tionsof"politicalecology,"sincetheyarein greatpart I knowWhitten'sworkwell frommyworkin theCo-
drivenby differential positioning alongthe binarisms lombianPacific.Mypaperreallytakesas a pointofde-
just sketched.Brosiussuggestsa usefuldistinction in parturethemorerecentemergence ofBrosius'ssecond
thegenealogy ofpoliticalecologybetweena firstform, formofpoliticalecology.Although I havewritten about
whichemergesoutofthefusionofculturalecologyand the politicalecologythatemergedin the I970s else-
politicaleconomy,thattendsto acceptas unproblem- where(Hvalkofand Escobari988), I need to consider
atic thematerial/ecological base ofsocial actionand a moresystematically thecontributions to today'spoliti-
morerecentone,informed bypoststructuralist theory, cal ecologiesmadethroughout theyearsbythescholars
thattakes"nature"itselfas problematic. Forthoseim- Hill mentions, amongothers,fromWhittento Coronil.
bued with the tenetsof realistpoliticalecology,the The notionofa colonialistregimeofnatureis also an
poststructuralist visionofmypaperappears"idealist" important qualification, one thatcannotbe reducedto
(Stonich)or biased towardconstructivism (Cleveland) being generatedby a capitalistmode of production.
or "confusedconstructivism" (Milton).Stonichseems Thereis a lotofwork-such as Hill's ownworkon rit-
to trace poststructuralist political ecology'smisfor- ual power,nature,andplace-that needsto be incorpo-
tunes to its proponents'"little aptitude,knowledge, ratedintoanypoliticalecologyproject.The onlyquali-
training, and/orexperience in thenaturalandphysical ficationI would make to his formulationis that
sciences"and to an apparentdisregard forquestionsof poststructuralism has addednew elementsand dimen-
practiceand "real-world problems."AlthoughI have sionsto thefield.Not everything thatpoliticalecology
had significant training in thesciences,it is fairto say needsto deal withwas alreadycontainedin theworks
thatI am committed to theconstructivist stance.How- ofthelate I970S.
ever,thereare naturalscientistswho findit increas- Poststructuralism, constructivism, and antiessen-
inglynecessary to engagewithpoststructuralism andto tialismarerelatively newtheoriesandmodesofanaly-
abandonconventional scienceepistemologies (suchas sis. Thereare stillmanyaspectsofthemto be worked
thosementionedin Rocheleau'scommentary), as well out and manymisunderstandings about theirclaims.
as biologicalanthropologists engagedin a dialoguewith Miltonand I seem to have contrasting views of con-
both political economy and poststructuralism (see structivism that,as she says,makeit difficult forus to
GoodmanandLeathermann i998). In addition,thereare understand whateachotheris saying.WhenI talkabout
development anthropologists who findthe poststruc- thedeconstruction of"seemingly solidcategories"like
turalistcritiqueofdevelopment fundamental fortrans- societyand thesubject,I meannotthatI believethey
formingtheirpractice(see, e.g., Gardnerand Lewis are solidbut thattheyare takento be so. Economism
i996). Stonich'sresistance, to mymind,arisesfromher and naturalismare certainly basedon thebeliefin es-
attachment to particular scienceandpoliticaleconomy sential,solidcoresat theheartofthe"realentities"of
paradigms thatat leastsomeoftheirpractitioners have economyand nature.Antiessentialism questionsthis
beenchallenging forsometime.Thisattachment would belief.And whenI say thatthe "separationof nature
be perfectly legitimate, ofcourse,ifin doingso she did and societyis one of the essentialfeaturesof modem
notdisqualify anyattempt at doingpoliticalecologydif- societies,"I meanthatit is-acentralfeature ("essential"
ferently,describing thisas "tangential" andunlikelyto was an unhappychoiceofword).In poststructuralism
"generate manyconverts among["real"]politicalecolo- thereis a self-reflexive relationbetweenframework and
gists."The truthis thatpoliticalecologyis a contested objectofanalysis.It is impossibleto definean objectof
domainofthoughtand action(see Brownn.d.);no one analysiscalled"regimesofnature"withoutfirstdesign-
perspective canclaimcontroloverit.It is nota question inga modeof analysison the basis of whichsuch an
ofgenerating converts butofexamining thevariousdis- objectcanbe constituted. It is fromthisframework that
coursesthatvie forcontrolofthefield'sdefinitions; we a set ofpracticesand empiricalfactscan be readas na-
need to openup to thepossibility offinding common tureregimes.This impliesa rejectionoftheempiricist
groundamongthe variousperspectives and be willing illusionaccording to whichfactsandframework arein-
to examinecritically ourownpositions.(I am aware,of dependentof each other.One final,and important,
course,thatwhatis at stakeis not onlyconceptsand pointof contention regarding poststructuralism raised
paradigms-orevennature-butcompetition forposi- by Miltonis the questionof judgment.I say "impor-
tions,graduate students, andthereproduction ofa given tant"becausethisis one ofthemostcommonmiscon-
academicgeneration. Experience has taughtme thatthe ceptionsofpoststructuralism-that itleadstocomplete
exclusionofparticular perspectives canhaveverytangi- relativism. I do notbelievethisis the case. Poststruc-
ble consequences.) turalismprovidesveryclear criteriaformakingjudg-
I wouldliketoreiterate thattheanswerdoesnothave mentsand takingactionbased on the analysisof dis-
to be either/or. The scope fora real dialogueacross courseand powerand the overallaim oftransforming
26 | CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume40, Numberi, Februaryi999

entrenched politicaleconomiesoftruth.Thatthesecri- ofwhichis centeredon a keyconceptin politicalecol-

teriacan neverbe universaland validonce and forall ogy:Place,Nature,Capital,Development, Identity, and
doesnotdisableaction.StuartHall's notionofarbitraryNetwork.)
closureprovidesa principle forlinkingtheoretical anal- Thisis notto saythattheframework presented in the
ysisand politicaldecisions.Praxis,as Clevelandsays, paperis complete, privileged, orevencorrect. I can now
startsby discussingthevalues thatarisefromvarious see manyof its gaps and flaws.Hodgson,Rocheleau,
culturalperspectives; it must thenconsiderissues of and Leffpointto someofthemostinsidious.Hodgson
powerand knowledgelinkedto thosevalues and per- is absolutelyrightin criticizing thepaper'ssuggestion
spectives. thateach natureregimebe studiedaccordingto a dis-
This appliesequallyto theissue ofthedefinition of tinctformofanalysis,a pointunderscored by Brosius.
"justice"and "sustainability" raisedbyCleveland.Leff Herargument in thisregardis veryinsightful andleads
makesthecase thatsustainability cannotbe defined in- me to abandonthis featureof the framework. I agree
dependently ofthespecificecological,cultural,techno- thatit is important to studyeach regimewithall the
logical,andeconomicconditions oftheappropriation of toolsat ourdisposal.In practice, however, we areham-
nature.ButClevelandalso pointsto a crucialissue:the peredfromdoingso by entrenched intellectualdivi-
persistent difficultyoftalkingacrossthesciencedivide. sionsoflabor(historical materialistsmakeorganicna-
As faras ecologyis concerned, thismightbe stated,fol- turesinvisibleor subordinate and have yetto account
lowingRappaport, as an aspectofthecontradiction be- fortherelationbetweencapitalandtechnonature; those
tweentheculturalandthebiological(seemyn. 3). I ac- studying local modelsshyawayfromlookingat capital-
ceptwhatClevelandsees as a "constructivist bias" in istnatureas a knowledge systemand shunanyconsid-
mypaperandwelcomehissuggestions fortranscendingerationof technonature by remainingtoo weddedto
it. This goal,he suggests, mightrequirecertain"social certaindomainsofstudyandempiricalsituations; etc.).
negotiations"-starting with acknowledging one's bi- Undertheseconditions, andholisticsynthe-
integrative
ases-and willingness to reexamineournotionofwhat ses seemdaunting. It is no accidentthatmostattempts
constitutes"biophysicalreality"and how it can be at articulating a transdisciplinaryfieldofenvironmen-
testedempirically. This is a positivesuggestion. The tal studieshave metwithverylimitedsuccess.Estab-
problemdoes not stopthere,however.True,thereare lishedmodesofknowledgeare "regional"and uneven
empiricaldata thatsuggestthatpeoplein organicre- discursiveformations. My suggestionof contrasting
gimesmanage,control,or "manipulate"theirenviron- modesofknowledgepointedto thesedifficulties. The
ments.WhenStrathemsays thatin theseregimesna- eloquenceof Hodgson'scommentary is an indication
tureis notmanipulated I believewhatshe has in mind thatmoreintegrative frameworks are becomingpossi-
is the different rationalitiesimputedor attachedto ble,but the issue is farfromsettled.Some paradigms
"manipulation"in modemand nonmodemsettings- are moreapt to examineparticularhistoricalperiods,
thatis,thefactthatcertainpracticesreadwithina mod- and when theyenterinto crisisit is because theyno
em regimeas manipulation ofnaturecannotbe readin longerprovide"all theanswers"(thisis clearlyhappen-
the same way in otherregimes,where(to startwith) ingwithhistoricalmaterialism today).Butthereis also
"nature"itselfis nota meaningful orpowerful distinc- thenotion,forinstance,in LatinAmericandebateson
tion.Whethernatureregimesare incommensurable or modernity andpostmodemity (butalso in otherformu-
whetherit mightbe possibleto builda metadomain of lations,suchas thatofPierreLevy,citedinn. 20), ofthe
discoursein whichcomparisons becomepossibleand coexistenceofsocialregimescharacterized bydifferent
fruitful is stillan openquestion.It is an important is- temporalitiesthatintensify contrastingforms ofknowl-
sue, evenif,as Berglund warns,one has to be mindful edge.Hodgson'scommentary has also made me fully
of the dangersofwantingto build"a theoryof every- awarethata consequenceof studying each regimeac-
thing."I generally agreewithheron thispoint.Besides cordingto a distinctmodeofknowledgeis thatit em-
a certainaestheticand epistemological drivetoward phasizesthe differences ratherthan the connections
"bigtheory-" however(whichmightpossiblybe associ- amongregimes.A relatedissue is thatofthestatusof
atedwithmale epistemological styles-perhapsone of "local knowledge"versus"science,"also pertinently
thethingsBerglund meantto say),I wonderifthereare raisedby Cleveland.My main interestin this regard
notcertainmomentsat whichan attemptat moreen- lies in analyzingtheirrespectiveclaims to truthand
compassing theory buildingis warranted. Arizpe(i996), the effectsof powerlinkedto thoseclaims,although
forinstance,has calleduponanthropologists to be less the more strictlyepistemologicalconsiderations are
timid in the developmentof more comprehensiveequallyimportant.
frameworks of globalproblems,buildingof courseon Rocheleauand Leffseemto agreein principlethatit
our ethnographic strengths. This paper is a case in is possibleto developan antiessentialist politicalecol-
point.It is actuallyone of a set of articles(mostof ogythatdoes not denybiophysicalreality.Theyboth
whichare listedin the paper'sbibliography) whichI wantthepaper'sargument, however,tobe morecareful
have been writingas a preparation fora book on the abouttheintegration ofthebiologicalandsocialdimen-
subject.Partoftheethnographic information thatBerg- sionsofthenatural.LikeHodgsonand Brosius,Roche-
lundwouldwishto see is in thesepapers;therestwill leau advocatesstudyingnatureregimeswith all the
be in thebook.(Thebookis dividedintochapterseach toolsofphilosophy and thenaturalandsocialsciences.
 ESCOBAR AfterNature I 27

She also considers, andI agree,thatthetypology ofthe omy,as he also observes.Of course,thepotentialities
threenatureregimesreducesthevisibility of"linkages oftechnonature can onlybe realizediflinkedwithsig-
and leakages"amongthem.She wouldfavorinsteada nificant transformations in cultural,economic,andpo-
typology of ecologiesand landscapesin termsof tech- liticalpractices.The reorientation ofevolutiontoward
nologies,ontologies,and formsofconsciousness.I be- diversity is a relative, notan absolute,utopia(inMann-
lievethisis a veryimportant proposal;it addsrichness heim's sense of these terms).As Leffand Rocheleau
and complexity to theidea ofnatureregimes.It could pointout, thispossibilitymay largelydependon the
also be said thattechnology, ontology, and epistemol- culturalpoliticsofthosesocialmovements whichadvo-
ogycrosscutthethreenatureregimesI outlined.Roche- cate thereappropriation ofnature,culture,knowledge,
leau advocatesbuildingmorebridgesin theaccountof and technology according to thelogicofdiversity.
hybridnaturesbetweensocial constructivism and bio- Severalcommentators expressreservations aboutthe
logicalrealities,frombothsides of the equation.The labelsgivento thethreeregimesand to thefactthatI
worksofPosey,Leach,Gomez-Pampa, AllenandHoek- retainthecategory of"nature."It is truethatit maybe
stra,and othersthatshe mentionscertainly constitute impossibleto separatethesignifiers "organic,""capital-
stepstowardsucha project.Linkingbiologicaltheories ist,"and"techno-"fromthesignifieds withwhichthey
ofcomplexity withsocialtheoriesofpower"to develop havebeenburdened byhistory. This is particularly true
a situated,practicalpoliticalecology"is an equallyex- ofthe"organic"label,as Brosiusclaims.Nevertheless,
citingprospect.Rocheleau'slucid prose alreadypre- arewe so imprisoned bycertainlabelsthattheycannot
sagesthealternative modelsofknowledge andecologies be reclaimed?Forme theissue is theextentto which
thatmightresultfromtheseefforts. Her essayis fullof the organiccan be constituted as the basis fortheory
richinsights,such as the importance forecologistsof construction andpoliticalaction(seen. i I). Reclaiming
thinking ofpower-with as muchas ofpower-over (also the organicwill of coursedependon the relationand
a feature emphasizedbysocialecologists), thenotionof balancebetweenthesetwo processes.Perhapsthe na-
emergent networks ofhybridnaturesas "new kindsof tureregimescan be seen as juxtapositions of distinct
placesin noncontiguous spaces"(whichsuggestsa use- narratives andpracticesshapedbypowerrelationsthat
fulangleforrethinking networktheories), and theim- extendfromthe local to the global,all of themwith
portanceof thinkingabout ecologiesas socially in- theirown complexhistoriesand hybridities. Areall of
scribedcollectivesofbeing-in-relation, ofensemblesof them"nature"?Nature,as Berglund says,is an intellec-
place(s),people(s),andnature(s).Rocheleau'santiessen- tualandpoliticalconcept,anditremainsan ontological
tialismis decisivelypluralandpractice-oriented. I look foundation.Milton, with Leff,seems to preferre-
forward to seeingitsdevelopment intoa fullerformula- stricting theconceptofnatureto theorganic/biophysi-
tion. cal. Ifone wereto heedcurrent philosophical critiques
Leff'sreworkingof nature regimesin terms of offoundationalism andessentialism, onewouldhaveto
culture/technology/economy matrices-that is, as concludethatbiophysicality is as muchtheessenceof
alternativenature-culture-technology regimes-is re- natureas societyis the essence of history.In other
latedto Rocheleau'srevisedtypology in termsoftech- words,we construct biophysicalrealityas nature.Fol-
nology,ontology, andconsciousness. Leff,however, an- lowingFoucault,one couldsaythat"nature"is a result
chorshis viewin an acceptanceoftheorganicessence ofcertainproblematizations, a "gameoftruth"through
of nature."Organicnature"in this way is really,in whichbiophysicalrealityis constituted as experience.
Leff'saccount,culturednature;this regimestill re- No morerealthan"sex,"it anchorsveryrealandpow-
spectstheecologicaland culturalspecificity ofnature. erfuldiscoursesand practices.Indeed,ifpoliticalecol-
This integrity startsto breakdownwithcapital'scon- ogyhas been firmly associatedwiththe studyand de-
struction ofnaturein termsofa universalcultureand fenseofnature,thisassociationneednotbe permanent.
is definitely shattered withthemoleculartechnologiza- Butthatis anotherstory.Fornow,I appreciate thecom-
tion of nature,whichrobsthe cultural/organic of its mentsthathave enabledme to rewriteand extendthe
fundamental role as the basis of evolution.Fromthis storycontainedin thepresentpaper.
pointon,natureregimeswillencompassfundamentally
different ontologicalorders(linkedto different formsof
technology andconsciousness, we couldadd,following
Rocheleau).This is why,as he pointsout,thearticula- Cited
References
tionofhybridregimescannotbe reducedto ecological
laws,economicforces,thermodynamics, orculturalra-
-AM, P NI NA. I 992. The politicsofmacromolecules. Osiris
tionalities.Fromthisfollowshis sustainedcall foran AB2dI Rseries, 7:I64-9 I.
articulation ofthesciencesbeyondbiocentrism, econo- AHL, VALERIE, TIMOTHY F. ALLEN, AND PAULA LERNER.
mism,and anthropocentrism, respecting nevertheless I996. Hierarchytheory:A vision,vocabulary,and epistemol-
the ontologicalfoundation of each science'sobjectof ogy.New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.IDERI
study("thebiologicalis organic;cultureis symbolic"). ALLEN, TIMOTHY F., AND THOMAS W. HOEKSTRA.
Towarda unifiedecology:Complexityin ecologicalsystems.
1993.

It is stillunclearif thisarticulation can fullyaccount New York: Columbia UniversityPress. [DERI

forthefactthattechnology seemsto pointthewayto- ALVAREZ, SONIA, EVELINA DAGNINO, AND ARTURO ES-
wardthedematerialization andecologizing oftheecon- COBAR. Editors.I998. Culturesofpolitics/Politics ofcultures:
28 | CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume40, Numberi, Februaryi999

RevisioningLatinAmericansocial movements.Boulder:West- textual approach," in Nature and society. Edited by P. Descola

view Press. and G. Pilsson, pp. 103-23. London and New York: Routledge.
APFFEL-MARGLIN, FREDERIQUE, AND JULIO VALLA- ESCOBAR, ARTURO. I1998a.Whoseknowledge,
whosenature?
DOLID. I998. Regeneration in the Andes. Interculture28(I):I- Biodiversityconservation and social movements political ecol-
56. ogy. MS.
ARIZPE, LOURDES. Editor. I1996. The cultural dimensions of . 1998b. The place of nature and the nature of place: Glob-
global change.Paris:UNESCO. alization or postdevelopment?MS.
ATRAN, S. I990. Cognitivefoundationsofnaturalhistory.Cam- . I998c. "Gender, place, and networks: A political ecology
bridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. ofcyberculture,"
in Women@Internet:
Creatingnew cultures
BENDER, BARBARA. 1993a. "Stonehenge-contested land- in cyberspace. Edited by Wendy Harcourt. London: Zed Books/
scapes,"in Landscape:Politicsand perspectives.
Editedby UNESCO.
Barbara Bender,pp. 245-79. Oxford: Berg. . 1995. Encountering development:The makingand un-
. Editor.1993b.Landscape:Politicsand perspectives.
Ox- making of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University
ford:Berg. Press.
BERGLUND, EEVA. I998. Knowingnature,knowingscience:An . I 996. "Constructingnature: Elements fora poststructural-
ethnography ofenvironmental activism.Cambridge:White ist political ecology," in Liberation ecologies. Edited by R. Peet
HorsePress. and M. Watts, pp. 46-68. London: Routledge.
BERLIN, BRENT. I99.2. Ethnobiological classification. . 1I997."Cultural politics and biological diversity:State,
Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress. capital, and social movements in the Pacific coast of Colom-
BIERSACK, ALETTA. 1997. Reproducing inequality: The gender bia," in Betweenresistanceand revolution:Cultureand social
politicsofmale cultsin theNew Guinea Highlandsand Ama- protest. Edited by Orin Starn and Richard Fox, pp. 40-64. New
zonia. MS. Brunswick: RutgersUniversity Press.
BLAIKIE, PIERS, AND HAROLD BROOKFIELD. I987. Land ESCOBAR, ARTURO, AND ALVARO PEDROSA. Editors. I996.
degradationand society.London:Methuen. PacificoiDesarrolloo diversidad?Estado,capitaly movi-
BL O C H, M AU RI C E. I 996. Whytrees,too,are goodto think mientossociales en el Pacificocolombiano.Bogota:CEREC/
with:Towardsan anthropology ofthemeaningoflife.Paper Ecofondo.
presentedat thesymposium"The ExplanationofNature:Biol- FORD, SUSAN. 1991. "Landscaperevisited:
A feminist reap-
ogyand theEthongraphic Record,"WoodrowWilsonCenter, praisal,"in New word,new worlds:Reconceptualising social
Washington,D.C., November 14-I6. and culturalgeography. Editedby C. Philo,pp. 151-55. Lam-
BOTKIN, DANIEL. I990. Discordantharmonies:A new ecology peter: Saint David's UniversityCollege.
forthetwenty-first
century.Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press. FOUCAULT, MICHEL. 1973. The orderof things.New York:
[DER] Vintage Books.
BROSIUS, PETER. 1997. Analyses and interventions:Anthropo- . 1975. The birthoftheclinic.New York:Vintage
logicalengagements withenvironmentalism.
MS. Books.
BROWN, CHARLES W. Editor.n.d. Contesteddomains:Politi- 1. 979. Disciplineand punish.New York:Vintage
cal ecologyand social practice.MS. Books.
BRUSH, STEPHEN, AND DOREEN STABINSKI. Editors. I996. . i99i. "Governmentality,"in The Foucaulteffect.Edited
Valuinglocal knowledge.Washington, D.C.: IslandPress. by Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller, pp. 87-
BRYANT, RAYMOND. I992. Politicalecology:An emerging re- 104. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
searchagendain ThirdWorldstudies.PoliticalGeography FRANKLIN, SARAH. 1995. Science as culture, cultures of sci-
II(0I:12-36. ence. AnnualReviewsof Anthropology 24:163-84.
CHERNAIK, LAURA. I996. Spatial displacements: Transnational- FRASER, NANCY. I989. Unrulypractices:Power,discourse,and
ism and thenew social movements.Gender,Place, and Cul- genderin contemporarysocial theory.Minneapolis:University
ture 3:251-75. ofMinnesotaPress.IDERI
CLEVELAND, DAVID A., AND STEPHEN C. MURRAY. 1997. GARCIA CANCLINI, NESTOR. I990. Culturas hibridas.
The world'scropgeneticresourcesand therightsofindigenous Mexico, D.F.: Grijalbo.
farmers.
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 38:477-51i. IDACI JARDNER, KATY, AND DAVID LEWIS. I996. Anthropology,
CLEVELAND, DAVID A., DANIELA SOLERI, AND STEVEN and thepost-modern
development, challenge.London:Pluto
E. SMITH. n.d.Farmervarietalmanagement and plant breed- Press.
ingfroma biologicaland socioculturalperspective:
Implica- JIBSON-GRAHAM, J-K. I996. The end of capitalism (as we
tionsforcollaborativebreeding.CIMMYT EconomicsWorking knew it). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Paper.Mexico,D.F. |DAC| GILROY, PAUL. 1993. The black Atlantic.Cambridge:Harvard
CORONIL, FERNANDO. 1977. The magical state. Chicago: Uni- University Press.
versityofChicagoPress.IJDHI JOODMAN, ALAN, AND THOMAS LEATHERMANN. Editors.
CRITICAL ART ENSEMBLE. I996. Electronic civil disobedi- i1998.Buildinga new bioculturalsynthesis:Political-economic
ence. New-York:Autonomedia. in biologicalanthropology.
perspectives AnnArbor:University
DAHL, GUDRUN. Editor. 1993. Green arguments forlocal sub- of Michigan Press.
sistence.Stockholm:StockholmUniversity Press. JOODMAN, ALAN, THOMAS LEATHERMANN, AND
D E L GAD O, RI C HARD. Editor.1995. Criticalrace theory:The BROOKE THOMAS. I996. Does combininghumanadaptabil-
cuttingedge.Philadelphia:TempleUniversity Press. ity and political economy equal political ecology? Paper pre-
DESCOLA, PHILIPPE. I992. "Societiesofnatureand thenature sented at the panel "Political Ecology and Social Practice,"
ofsociety,"in Conceptualizing society.EditedbyAdam 95th annual meeting of the American Anthropological Associa-
Kuper, pp. 107-26. London: Routledge. tion, San Francisco, November 20-24.
. 1994. In thesocietyofnature.Cambridge:Cambridge JREENBERG, JAMES, AND THOMAS PARK. 1994. Political
University Press. ecology. Journalof Political Ecology I(I):I-I2.
. I996. "Constructing natures:Symbolicecologyand social : RILLO, EDUARDO. Editor. 1991 . Cultura andina agrocen-
practice,"in Natureand society.Editedby PhilippeDescola trica. Lima: PRATEC.
and Gisli Palsson, pp. 82-IO2. London:Routledge. JRUESO, LIBIA, CARLOS ROSERO, AND ARTURO ESCO-
DESCOLA, PHILIPPE, AND GISLI PALSSON. Editors. I996. BAR. I998. "The processofblackcommunity in
organizing
Natureand society:Anthropological London:
perspectives. the southern Pacific coast of Colombia," in Cultures of
Routledge. ofcultures:RevisioningLatinAmericansocial
politics/Politics
DIRLIK, AR IF. 1I997.Globalism and the politics of place. MS. movements. Edited by Sonia E. Alvarez, Evelina Dagnino, and
ELLEN, R. F. 1996. "The cognitivegeometry ofnature:A con- ArturoEscobar. Boulder: Westview Press.
 ESCOBAR AfterNature 1.29

GUATTARI, FELIX. 1995a. Chaosmosis.Bloomington: Indiana and visuality.Editedby Hal Foster,pp. 3-28. Seattle:Bay
UniversityPress. Press.
. 1995b.Chaosophy.New York:Semiotext(e). JOHNSTON, BARBARA. Editor. 1994. Who pays the price? The
GUDEMAN, STEPHEN. I996. "Sketches,qualms,and other socioculturalcontextof theenvironmentalcrisis.Washington,
thoughtson intellectual propertyrights,"in Valuing local D.C.: IslandPress.
knowledge.Editedby StephenBrushand DoreenStabinsky, . 1997. Lifeand deathmatters:Human rightsand theen-
D.C.: IslandPress.
pp. IO2-2I. Washington, vironment at theend of themillennium.WalnutCreek,Calif.:
GUDEMAN, STEPHEN, AND ALBERTO RIVERA. 1990. Con- AltamiraPress.
versationsin Colombia. The domesticeconomyin lifeand KOTTAK, CONRAD. 1997. The new ecological anthropology.Pa-
text.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Pa-
perpresentedat thepanel "Culture/Power/History/Nature:
GUHA, RAMACHANDRA. ofthe
1997. "The environmentalism persin HonorofRoyA. Rappaport,"96thannualmeetingof
poor,"in Betweenresistanceand revolution:Cultureand theAmericanAnthropological D.C.,
Association,Washington,
social protest.Editedby OrinStarnand RichardFox,pp. Novemberi9-2I.
17-39. New Brunswick: RutgersUniversity Press. KROKER, ARTHUR, AND MICHAEL WEINSTEIN. 1994. Data
GUPTA, ANIL. 1997. The HoneyBee Network:Linkingknowl- trash.New York:St. Martin'sPress.
edge-richgrassrootsinnovations. Development 40(4):36-41. LACLAU, ERNESTO. i996 Emancipation(s). London: Verso
HARAWAY, DONNA. I998. Situatedknowledges:The science LACLAU, ERNESTO, AND CHANTAL MOUFFE. I985. Hege-
question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. London:Verso.
monyand socialiststrategy.
Feminist Studies 14:575-99. LANDES, DAVID. i983. Revolutionin time:Clocks and the
I 989. Primatevisions.New York:Routledge. makingof themodernworld.Cambridge:HarvardUniversity
. I99I. Simians,cyborgs,and women:The reinventionof Press.
nature.New York:Routledge. LANSING, STEPHEN. i99I. Priests and programmers.
. I992. "The promisesofmonsters:A regenerative politics Press.
Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
ofinappropriate(d)others,"in Culturalstudies.Editedby LATOUR, BRUNO. 1993. We have never been modern. Cam-
L. Grossberg,C. Nelson, and P. Treichler, pp. 295-337. New bridge:HarvardUniversity Press.
York:Routledge. LEFF, ENRIQUE. Editor.i986. Los problemasdel conocimiento
HARDING, SANDRA. I998. Is sciencemulticultural? Postcolo- y la perspectivaambientaldel desarrollo.Mexico: SigloXXI.
nialisms,feminisms, and epistemologies.Bloomington: Indi- . 1993. Marxismand theenvironmental question.Capital-
ana University Press.[DACI ism,Nature,Socialism4( I):44-66.
HAYLES, KATHERINE. 1995. "Searchingforcommonground," . 1994. Ecotechnological productivity:The emergenceofa
in Reinventing nature?EditedbyMichaelSoule and Gary concept,its implicationsand applicationsforsustainabledevel-
Lease, pp. 47-64. Washington,D.C.: Island Press. opment.Paperpresentedat theSecondInternational Confer-
HELLER, CHAIA. I998. The ecologyofeveryday life:Rethink- ence on Implicationsand ApplicationsofBioeconomics,Euro-
ing thedesirefor"nature."Montreal:BlackRose Books. pean AssociationforBioeconomicStudies,Palma de Mallorca,
. n.d. "Politicalecology,anthropology,and social ecology: March 1I- 13.
Towarda post-scarcity discussionofglobalizationand develop- . 1995. Greenproduction.New York:Guilford Press.
ment,"in Contesteddomains:Politicalecologyand social LEVY, PIERRE. I1991 . Les technologies de l'intelligence.Paris:
practice.EditedbyCharlesW. Brown.MS. EditionsLa Decouverte.
HELMREI CH, S TEFAN. n.d. "Anthropological reflections and re- . I995. Qu'est que le virtuel?Paris:EditionsLa Decou-
fractions on thelooking-glass worldsofartificial life,"in Vital verte.
signs:Culturalperspectives on codinglifeand vitalizingcode. MAC CORMACK, CAROL, AND MARILYN STRATHERN. Edi-
Editedby LucySuchmanand JoanFujimura.MS. tors.I980. Nature,culture,and gender.Cambridge:Cambridge
HESS, DAVID. 1995. Scienceand technology in a multicultural University Press.
world.New York:ColumbiaUniversity Press. MARTINEZ ALIER, JUAN. 1I995. Politicalecology,distribu-
HI LL, JONATHAN D. I 989. Ritualproduction ofenvironmental tionalconflicts, and ecologicalincommensurability. New Left
historyamongtheArawakanWakuenaiofVenezuela.Human Review2II:70-88.
Ecology I7(I):I-I7. IJDHI MATURANA, HUMBERTO, AND FRANCISCO VARELA. I987.
HOBART, M ARK. Editor.I 993. An anthropological critiqueof The treeofknowledge.Boston:Shambhala.
development. London:Routledge. MERCHANT, CAROLYN. I980. The deathofnature.New York:
HVALKOF, SOREN, AND ARTURO ESCOBAR. I998. "Political Harperand Row.
ecologyand social practice:Notes towardsan academicand po MILTON, KAY. Editor.I993. Environmentalism: The viewfrom
liticalagenda,"in Buildinga bioculturalsynthesis:Political- anthropology. London:Routledge.
economicperspectives in biologicalanthropology. Editedby MORAN, EMILIO. Editor.I990. The ecosystemsapproachin an-
Alan Goodmanand ThomasLeathermann. AnnArbor:Univer- thropology. AnnArbor:University ofMichiganPress.
sityofMichiganPress. MOUFFE, CHANTAL. I993. The returnof thepolitical.London:
I NGO LD, T I M. I 990. An anthropologist looks at biology.Man Verso.
25:20o8-29. 0 CONNOR, JAMES. I988. Capitalism,nature,socialism:A
. I992. "Cultureand theperception oftheenvironment," theoretical introduction. Capitalism,Nature,Socialismi (i):
in Bush base: Forestfarm.Editedby E. Croll and D. Parkin, II-38.
PP. 39-56. Londonand New York:Routledge.[KMI O' CONNOR MARTIN. I993. On themisadventures ofcapitalist
. I995. "Building,dwelling,living:How animalsand peo- nature. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 4(4):7-34.
ple make themselvesat homein theworld,"in Shifting con- PALSSON, GiSLI. I997. The "charm of terror"of human ecol-
texts:Transformations in anthropologicalknowledge.Edited ogy:Natureand societyin theage ofpostmodernity. Paperpre-
by Marilyn Strathern,pp. 57-80. London: Routledge. sentedat thepanel "Culture/Power/History/Nature: Papersin
. I996. "The optimalforager and economicman,"in Na- HonorofRoyA. Rappaport,"96thannualmeetingoftheAmer-
tureand society.EditedbyPhilippeDescola and Gisli Pilsson, ican Anthropological Association,Washington, D.C., Novem-
PP. 25-44. London: Routledge. ber I9-21.
JACKS ON, MICHAEL. I1996. "Introduction:Phenomenology,rad- PEET, RICHARD, AND MICHAEL WATTS. Editors. i996. Lib-
ical empiricism, and anthropological critique," in Things as erationecologies:Environment, development,social move-
theyare: New directionsin phenomenological
anthropology. ments.London:Routledge.
Edited by Michael Jackson,pp. i-5o. Bloomington: Indiana POLANYI, KARL. I1957. "The economyas an institutedpro-
Press.
University cess," in Tradeand marketsin theearlyempires.Editedby
JAY, MARTIN. I988. "Scopic regimes of modernity,"in Vision Karl Polanyi et al., pp. 243-7o. New York: Free Press.
301 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume40, NumberI, Februaryi999

RABINOW, PAUL. 1992. "Artificiality From

and enlightenment: SOULE, MICHAEL, AND GARY LEASE. Editors. 1995. Rein-
sociobiologyto biosociality,"in Incorporations.
EditedbyJona. D.C.: IslandPress.
ventingnature?Washington,
than Crary and SanfordKwinter,pp. 234-52.. New York: Zone STEAD MAN, DAVID W. 1I995. Prehistoricextinctions of Pacific
Books. Islandbirds:Biodiversity Science267:
meetszooarchaeology.
. I996. MakingPCR: A studyofbiotechnology.
Chicago: II23-31. [DAC]
UniversityofChicagoPress. STEINGRABER, SANDRA. 1997. Living downstream: An ecolo-
RAPPAPORT, ROY. i990. "Ecosystems, populations, and peo- Reading,Mass.:
gistlooks at cancerand theenvironment.
ple," in The ecosystemapproachin anthropology.
Editedby Addison-Wesley. [DER]
EmilioMoran,pp. 41-73. AnnArbor:University ofMichigan STRATHERN, MARILYN. I980. "No nature, no culture: The Ha-
Press. gencase," in Nature,culture,and gender.EditedbyC. Mac-
RESTREPO, EDUARDO, AND JORGE I. DEL VALLE. Editors. Cormackand M. Strathern, pp. 174-222. Cambridge:Cam-
I996. Renacientesdel Guandal. Bogoti:UniversidadNacional/ bridgeUniversity Press.
Biopacifico. . I988. Thegenderofthegift.Berkeley:UniversityofCali-
RICHARDS, PAUL. 1993. "Cultivation:Knowledgeor perfor- forniaPress.
mance?"in Anthropological critiqueofdevelopment. Edited . I9gg2a.Afternature:Englishkinshipin thelate twenti-
by MarkHobart,pp. 6 1-78. London:Routledge. eth century.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
ROCHELEAU, DIANNE, BARBARA THOMAS-SLAYTER, AND . 1992b. Reproducingthefuture.London:Routledge.
ESTHER WANGARI. Editors. I996. Feminist political ecology. SUCHMAN, LUCY, AND JOAN FUJIMURA. Editors. n.d. Vital
London:Routledge. signs:Culturalperspectiveson codinglifeand vitalizingcode.
ROSALDO, MICHELLE. I980. The use and abuse ofanthropol- MS.
ogy. Signs 5(31):389-417. TAUSSIG, MICHAEL. i987. Shamanism,colonialism,and the
SCHMITT, RICHARD. I996. BeyQndseparateness:The social wild man. Chicago:University ofChicagoPress.[JDH]
natureofhumanbeings-theirautonomy,knowledge,and THOMAS, JULIAN. 1993. "The politicsofvisionand thearchae-
power.Boulder:WestviewPress.IDERI ologiesoflandscape,"in Landscape:Politicsand perspective.
SCOONES, IAN, AND JOHN THOMPSON. 1994. "Knowledge, EditedbyBarbaraBender,pp. 19-48. Oxford:Berg.
Towardsa theoretical
power,and agriculture: understanding," TILLEY, CHARLES. 1I994.A phenomenology of landscape. Ox-
in Beyondfarmerfirst.EditedbyIan Scoonesand JohnThomp. ford:Berg.
son,pp. I6-32. London:IntermediateTechnologyPublications, VARELA, FRANCISCO, EVAN THOMPSON, AND ELEANOR
[DACI RO S C H. I MIT
991 . The embodiedmind.Cambridge:
SHIVA, VANDANA. 1993. Monocultures of the mind: Perspec- Press.
tiveson biodiversity London:Zed Books.
and biotechnology. WHITTEN, NORMAN. 1I978.Ecologicalimageryand cultural
1.997. Biopiracy. Boston: South End Press. The Canelas Quichua ofeasternEcuador.Ameri-
adaptability:
SMITH, NEIL. i 984. Unevendevelopment.
Oxford:Basil Black- can Anthropologist 80:836-59. [JDH]
well. WILLIAMS, RAYMOND. I980. "Ideas ofnature,"in Problemsin
SNOW, C. P. I964. The twocultures.Cambridge:Cambridge materialismand culture.Editedby RaymondWilliams,pp.
University Press.IDACI 67-85. London:Verso.
SO PER, KATE. I996. "Nature/'nature,'" in FutureNatural.
Ed- WILSON, EDWARD 0. i998. Consilience: The unity of knowl-
itedby GeorgeRobertsonet al., pp. 22-34. London:Routledge. edge.New York:Knopf.[DACd