This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
Geoforum 40 (2009) 287–291
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Geoforum
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum
Gramsci Lives!
Michael Ekers a,*, Alex Loftus b, Geoff Mann c
a
b
c
School of Geography, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, England OX1 3QY, United Kingdom
Department of Geography, Royal Holloway, University of London, Surrey, England TW20 0EX, United Kingdom
Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 26 February 2009
Received in revised form 27 April 2009
Keywords:
Antonio Gramsci
Political ecology
Nature
Hegemony
a b s t r a c t
Antonio Gramsci’s writings provide a valuable conceptual and political sensibility for critical approaches
to nature. In this editorial introduction to a theme issue on Gramscian Political Ecologies we establish the
broad contours to such an approach, stressing Gramsci’s integral marxism and commitment to a transformative politics relevant to the contemporary moment. Subsequently, we provide an introduction to existing political ecological research inspired by Gramsci’s wide-ranging writings. In order to stimulate future
research, we question Gramsci’s reflections on ‘nature’ in order to examine the embyonic possibilities and
limitations therein. Gramsci, we suggest, provides stimulating commentary on the differentiated unity of
nature and society: in part, this anticipates recent arguments on this subject. Similarly, we reflect on how
Gramsci’s conceptualization of hegemony relates to core issues within political ecology. Given the centrality of ‘environmental issues’ in the contemporary moment, it is necessary to consider how social
groups enrol natures and environments (both material and symbolic) in their struggles for hegemony.
We conclude the editorial by introducing the articles included in the theme issue.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The papers assembled for this special issue on Gramscian Political Ecologies are motivated by two common convictions: first, that
struggles over nature and the environment are fundamental to
contemporary political prospects; and second, that concepts and
categories drawn from the work of Antonio Gramsci can be incredibly valuable resources in understanding these struggles and what
they might achieve. But with even the Hoover Institution throwing
Gramsci’s name around these days (e.g. Fonte, 2001), and ‘‘hegemony” a staple of orthodox international relations literature, the
adjective ‘‘Gramscian” cannot on its own situate the substance of
the contributions contained herein. This introduction thus outlines,
albeit briefly, some relevant background to the principal geographic questions that motivate the collection: Gramsci, nature,
and hegemony.
Doing justice to Gramsci himself is among the more daunting of
these introductory responsibilities. Part of the difficulty is that, if
Michel Foucault is correct, of all social theorists, Gramsci is among
the most cited but least read [quoted in Buttigieg (1991, p. xix)].
Many human geographers know his name today, and many of
those know he formulated a theory of ‘‘hegemony”, even if they
have not read it themselves. But far fewer, it seems, have engaged
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: michael.ekers@stx.ac.uk (M. Ekers), alex.loftus@rhul.ac.uk
(A. Loftus), geoffm@sfu.ca (G. Mann).
0016-7185/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.04.007
with his thought directly. The details of Gramsci’s life certainly explain his renown: a brilliant Marxist thinker and journalist, a militant communist and co-founder of the Italian Communist Party
(PCI), he was jailed by Mussolini’s fascists in 1926, at the age of
35, and died in prison eleven years later. All the more remarkable,
the legacy of those terrible years is a collection of notebooks he
wrote while imprisoned, containing thousands of entries on a
whole host of topics, from Italian history to Marxian theory to folklore. These notes, which include everything from extended essays
to sardonic one-liners, are perhaps the principal reason Gramsci’s
name, and his ideas, have always carried enormous weight in Italy,
and have had an increasingly important influence in other parts of
the world.
Yet the very diversity of his subject matter—popular theatre, science, economic development, idealism, religion, revolution—the
enormous range of his thought, and the conditions under which
he worked, have meant that at times it appears as if Gramsci’s ideas
can do anything for anybody. Indeed, what Gramsci ‘‘really”
thought, and the work his legacy can do, has long been a subject
of heated disagreement inside the PCI itself. So the question of
‘‘which Gramsci” is not an idle one. This is not to say that there is
a correct way to read Gramsci (there is not), or that all the papers
included here read him in the same way (they do not). It is to say,
rather, that any social science that goes by the modifier Gramscian
is engaged in a conversation with a complex, at times fragmented,
and ultimately open set of texts. The exegetical battles will never be
resolved.
Author's personal copy
288
M. Ekers et al. / Geoforum 40 (2009) 287–291
There are, however, some broad sensibilities that most Gramscian analyses share, which would surely include the following.
First, like Gramsci’s own studies (and Marx’s), they are explicitly
political: they focus on the current conjuncture, teasing apart the
historically and geographically specific work of power, the forms
that power takes, and the terrain of constraint and opportunity it
helps determine. Second, and implicit in the first, the goal of such
work is never merely research (whether critical or otherwise) that
seeks to explain the world. Gramsci’s attitude to research was
bolder: he hoped to develop a ‘‘critical” analysis that would both
make sense of and help change the situation under the microscope.
His project was explicitly a transformative one and his engagement
with radical politics mirrored this commitment. Third, most studies inspired by Gramsci do not prioritize the ‘‘economic”, the ‘‘cultural” or the ‘‘political” moments of the conjuncture, but
understand these moments as irreducibly intertwined. The work
of power is never confined to bounded ‘‘spheres” of social life, none
of which stand or fall in isolation. Indeed, the fact that power is at
the end of its tether when its effectiveness is reduced to a single
‘‘sphere”—a condition exemplified by what Giovanni Arrighi
(2007) calls contemporary American ‘‘domination without hegemony”—is a distinctively Gramscian insight.
Despite their differences, the papers in this special issue share
these sensibilities, and show how political ecology is particularly
fertile ground in which to cultivate them. This fruitful relation is
enabled by the centrality and increasing visibility of environmental
concerns and various negotiations of ‘‘the nature question” more
broadly. In this tenor, the different papers indicate how Gramsci
provides us with some of the conceptual and political resources
for understanding social movements pursuing social and environmental justice, as well as for making sense of struggles over social
reproduction and distinct productions of nature and their attendant social consequences. This historical conjuncture is supplemented by political ecology’s methodological and epistemological
catholicism—its roots lie in Marxian political economy, cultural
ecology, environmental science, and in poststructural and postcolonial examinations of discourse and subjectivity. As such, political
ecology might prove an excellent medium for a fresh turn to Gramsci, and, as the papers included here hope to show, Gramsci has
much to offer political ecology.
Thus, a new front in Gramscian studies has emerged in the field
of ‘political ecology’. For Wainwright (2005) the important feature
that a Gramscian sensibility – read through a geographical postcolonial lens – brings to political ecology is an awareness of how
hegemony is achieved through particular spaces and natures
becoming reified and taken-for-granted. Thus he takes issue with
realist understandings of space and nature for failing to interrogate
how something that is ostensibly ‘real’ – whether it is a particular
environment or political territory – is nonetheless historically constructed through colonial and post-colonial knowledges and institutions. Other contributions to political ecology and Gramsci have
focused on social movements and resistance, the focus being on
the appropriation and distribution of resources. Exemplary of this
stream of scholarship is Donald Moore’s (1996) study of access to
resources in Zimbabwe. Moore’s focus on how the state’s involvement in land use policy and the regional economy tapped into the
cultural politics of gender and masculinity illustrates the promise
of a Gramscian approach to political ecology. More recently, geographers have looked at how different social groups construct their
hegemony through altering the ecologies of different landscapes.
Shaul Cohen (2004) uses Gramsci’s writings on hegemony to better
understand the seemingly neutral act of tree-planting and how this
is bound up in relations of power. For both Loftus and Lumsden
(2008) and Ekers and Loftus (2008) engaging with Gramsci’s work
permits radically new horizons for theorising water politics, which
focus on enacting, and challenging, social groups’ hegemony.
While the secondary literature on Gramsci and nature, environmentalism, or ecology is limited there is a smaller armoury of concepts in Gramsci’s work through which debates in political ecology
can be pushed forward. Two of the most important areas of Gramsci’s work which we feel can be productively engaged are his writing on ‘nature’ and his foundational writings on hegemony.
2. The concept of nature in Gramsci
It would be naïve to assume that Gramsci understood nature
in a manner easily commensurable with contemporary readings
of environmental politics, as if he were a political ecologist avant
la lettre. Nevertheless, there are tantalising suggestions in his
writings on nature, from which we might begin to work out certain methodological principles. Crucial here is Gramsci’s reading
of Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach. Dealing with the Theses, Gramsci
performs several fascinating transformations central to his understanding of nature. Above all, he opens to a socio-natural reading
Marx’s claim that human nature is an ensemble of sedimented
social relations. Implicit here is a conception of nature and society as an ensemble of historically and geographically specific
ecologies. Several such insights are contained in the note ‘‘What
is Man?”—a question which, abstracted from its historical and
geographical contexts, is of course nonsense to Gramsci. Rather,
what matters to Gramsci in a given context is ‘‘what can man
become?” Just as Marx counters Feuerbach’s abstract conception
of ‘‘Man”, so Gramsci develops a process-based or relational
understanding:
‘‘one must conceive of man as a series of active relationships
(a process) in which individuality, though perhaps the most
important, is not, however, the only element to be taken into
account. The humanity which is reflected in each individuality is composed of various elements: 1. the individual; 2.
other men; 3. the natural world” (1971, p. 352)
Humanity cannot be divorced from the natural world. The individual cannot be understood outside the socio-natural relations specific to particular places and times. As with Marx, Gramsci goes
on to write how relationships between people and with environments are forged actively through work and technique.
Furthermore:
‘‘one could say that each of us changes himself and modifies
the complex relations of which he is the hub. In this sense
the real philosopher is, and cannot be other than, the politician, the active man who modifies the environment, understanding by environment the ensemble of relations which
each of us enters to take part in. If one’s own individuality
is the ensemble of these relations, to create one’s personality
means to acquire consciousness of them and to modify one’s
own personality means to modify the ensemble of these relations” (1971, p. 352)
Put in other terms, through producing nature, humans and their
environments co-evolve. Consciousness of this co-evolution
emerges through active involvement in the process. This is a brilliant move on Gramsci’s part, one which, although implicit throughout Marx’s writings, is never developed adequately. It points to the
conditions of possibility for radical change that might emerge
through interactions with nature. Elsewhere, Gramsci refers to this
conception by broadening the third thesis on Feuerbach, in which
Marx criticises crude materialists for failing to recognise that ‘‘it is
essential to educate the educator” (1975, p. 422). Writing of the cultural environment, Gramsci notes that the ‘‘environment reacts
back on the philosopher and imposes on him a continual process
of self criticism” (1971, p. 350). Elsewhere, he emphasizes the
Author's personal copy
M. Ekers et al. / Geoforum 40 (2009) 287–291
‘‘revolutionary dialectic” embraced when one understands that ‘‘[i]f
the environment is the educator, it too must in turn be educated”
(1971, p. 435). It is possible to take some of these suggestive insights (insights with which many political ecologists will no doubt
be comfortable) forward in re-reading other key concepts in Gramsci: the environment – understood as a socio-natural entity – is one
particular terrain over which hegemony is consolidated and
contested.
Before establishing this broader claim, it is important to note
other aspects of Gramsci’s concept of nature that, in some respects,
might seem antithetical to the conception outlined here. Without a
fully elaborated concept of nature in the Prison Notebooks, Fontana
argues there are five key conceptualizations of ‘‘nature” in Gramsci’s oeuvre: nature as undifferentiated matter; nature envisioned
as ‘‘second nature”; nature as the irrational, as instinct and impulse; nature as chaos or disorder; and the potential overcoming
of the domination or conquest of nature (1996, p. 221). Elaborating,
he makes a compelling case that, for Gramsci, ‘‘[m]an’s interaction
with nature mediated through labour and technology initiates the
historical process through which humanity achieves consciousness
of itself and its manifold relations with the world” (1996, p. 230).
Still, Fontana ultimately asserts that humanity’s relationship with
nature is one of domination, arguably a claim for which one can
find support in Gramsci’s work. Writing of the scientific process
he states that:
‘‘One might say that the typical unitary process of reality is
found here in the experimental activity of the scientist,
which is the mode of dialectical mediation between man
and nature, and the elementary historical cell through which
man puts himself into relation with nature by means of technology, knows her and dominates her. There can be no doubt
that the rise of the experimental method separates two historical worlds, two epochs, and initiates the process of dissolution of theology and metaphysics and the process of
development of modern thought whose consummation is
in the philosophy of praxis. Scientific experiment is the first
cell of the new method of production, of the new form of
active union of man and nature” (1971, p. 446)
Not only does Gramsci appear to celebrate the domination of nature
here, but he feminises nature in a way that appears crude, ahistorical and contrary to more nuanced, situated perspectives found
elsewhere. This is a common problem reading Gramsci: just when
one seems to have figured out his writings on hegemony, the state
or civil society, one reads something else that puts everything in
question again. Nevertheless, even if Gramsci’s account of humanity’s ‘domination of nature’ seems no longer tenable, there remains
a sense of the new possibilities find a basis in a self-conscious and
rigorous engagement with the socio-natural world. Fontana concludes his paper on this hopeful note: through coming to recognise
the domination of nature in their acts, men and women may be able
to forge new relationships of socio-ecological harmony, might seek
a new ecological consciousness.
As hopeful an analysis as this is, its basis in a relation of domination sits awkwardly with most of the conceptions of environment-society relations with which contemporary political
ecologists work. Moreover, Gramsci’s writings contain ample suggestions that consciousness of the socio-natural domain may
emerge through interactions with nature that have little to do with
domination, at least in the sense through which Gramsci distinguishes domination from hegemony. Indeed, the experimental
mode of the scientist can be read as one through which the possibility for producing nature differently might also emerge. Thinking
this through, and thinking through how ideas come to be stabilised
at specific times and places, necessitates turning in more detail to
Gramsci’s scattered writings on hegemony.
289
3. Hegemony and nature
The legacy of Gramsci’s social-political thought is indexed by
the countless evocations of hegemony by social scientists and
political theorists of every stripe. At a very basic – but important
– level, hegemony gives us a convenient vocabulary for understanding why people consent to, and participate in, relationships
that are fundamentally unjust. Hegemony is a powerful conceptual vehicle for understanding how capitalism survives despite
its contradictions. This is one of the questions that animated
Gramsci’s work and spurred his scattered comments on hegemony. For Gramsci, hegemony refers to the ability of a ruling bloc
to exercise leadership and control over subordinated social groups
through ‘‘bringing about not only a union of economic and political aims, but also intellectual moral unity, posing all the questions around which struggles rage not on a corporate but a
‘universal plane’” (Gramsci, 1971, p. 182). It should be added that
universalizing the interests of a particular social group necessarily
involves reproducing a series of social relations concerning class
and capital, gender, race and nationalism. Hegemony thus concerns both the legitimacy of a social group’s position of power
and the diffusion and adoption of a set of ideologies and social
relationships.
There is something ironic to the fact that Gramsci is so widely
cited as the theorist of hegemony. In the Prison Notebooks, hegemony is never used as a title to a note or as a rubric for organizing various reflections (Buttigieg, 2007). However, Gramsci’s
reflections on the state, civil-society, ideology, philosophy and
popular culture collectively contribute to his understanding of
hegemony and illustrate the wide social terrain through which
hegemonic projects are enacted. The mass-appeal of the idea of
hegemony would appear to lie in its ready application to a
wide-range of social phenomenon. However, the ubiquitous use
of hegemony can occlude two important dimensions of Gramsci’s
initial understanding of the term. First, hegemony is meaningless
outside of a consideration of the lived practices through which it
is enacted. Analysing and participating in – or against – a hegemonic project necessary entails getting to grips with ideologies
and their imbrication in ‘‘lived, habitual social practice – which
must then presumably encompass the unconscious, in-articulate
dimensions of social experience as well as the workings of frontal
institutions” (Eagleton (1991, p. 115). Hegemony is something
concrete rather than abstract, lived rather than imposed. Second,
hegemony is not a singular project even if hegemonic projects
consist of attempts to achieve some type of universalism. The
manner in which a wide-range of popular, philosophical, economic, and cultural phenomenon are articulated together in a
hegemonic project illuminates the multiple axes through which
hegemonic struggles are waged (Gramsci, 1971, pp. 400–402;
see also Hall, 1996).
If hegemony involves concrete lived relations and is always
multifaceted, what does this mean for the relationship between
hegemonic projects and the question of nature? To start with, social groups that aspire to hegemony increasingly have to demonstrate their ability to pose solutions to a variety of issues related
to nature and the environment. Neither contemporary hegemonic
blocs nor aspiring hegemonic actors – from neoliberal capitalist
democracies, China’s authoritarian capitalists, to the Landless Peasant Movement at work in Brazil – can afford to ignore the problematic of nature in their political projects. The range of political
projects that try to grapple with the question of nature signal
how the terrain on which hegemonic struggles are waged has been
recast. In the realm of virtually all political futures presently imaginable, nature now stands as a protagonist; it provides the term by
Author's personal copy
290
M. Ekers et al. / Geoforum 40 (2009) 287–291
which, by any measure, the question of what is to be done is now
framed.
However, questions of the environment and nature are inextricably connected to a host of other social relations such as class,
gender, race and nationalism. Examples of the multifaceted character of struggles over the environment are almost too numerous to
mention: the ‘greening’ of capitalism (Caprotti, 2009), the enrollment of water as an actor in authoritarian political projects
(Swyngedouw, 2007), or wetland development as key to the coherence of a national-colonial narrative (Yeh, 2009). The point simply
is that both movements supporting existing hegemonic blocs and
aspiring hegemons can never settle on this or that discreet part
of the environment, but rather must tackle the ‘bundle’ of social
relations articulated in what is known to be ‘nature’. As nature is
materially and ideologically enrolled and produced in hegemonic
projects this occurs in both the domain of the extraordinary and
that of everyday life and work. Again, for Gramsci the environment
becomes the educator. Hegemonic struggles concerning nature revolve around how people make sense of their relationship with the
environment and thereby participate and modify the ‘‘ensemble of
relations” they live within.
It is crucial to remember that the ideologies and practices
through which people actively enter into relation with ‘nature’
are radically open to historical change. Gramsci (1977, p. 96)
encouraged factory workers to establish a new ‘‘shop-floor way of
life” which would provide the basis for broad social change. In
the current historical moment, a progressive hegemonic struggle
seeking to resolve questions around nature and the environment
needs to transform an ecological way of life at the level of life
and work. Changing the everyday ensemble of relations that straddle the ‘social’ and ‘ecological’ domains represents the humble
beginnings of an alternative hegemonic politics of the environment, yet, as ever, Gramsci presses us to consider how any environmental politics must take seriously the multiple fronts on
which hegemonic struggles are waged.
ceived of it, can make a crucial contribution to political ecology’s
understanding of hegemony, history, and environmental change.
In doing so, he demonstrates that a Gramscian political ecology
has a more varied armoury of resources for tackling key political
ecological questions than many have realised to date.
The papers by Karriem and Ekers pick-up on Gramsci’s (1971, p.
448) reflection that ‘‘human history should also be conceived as
the history of nature” in order to examine how different struggles
for hegemony occur in conjunction with the production of nature.
Karriem examines the Brazilian Landless Movement (MST) through
a Gramscian lens that foregrounds the spatial and political ecological practices of the movement. He emphasizes the ways in which
the MST struggles from below to re-structure political ecological
and scalar relations. He traces the rise of the MST starting with
the influential role of liberation theology then moving on to the
process of national territorialization and the pursuit of ‘global
ambition’. For Karriem, the social-political aspirations of the MST
are achieved by contesting the neoliberalization of nature and
enacting alternative social-natural relations that empower subaltern social groups. The paper by Ekers shares this interest in how
hegemony is built through the material-ideological transformation
of nature. Ekers examines depression-era British Columbia, specifically the efforts of the federal and provincial states to establish a
broad-based socionatural hegemony. Building on Stuart Hall’s
reflections on the multiple axes of hegemony, Ekers focuses on
relations of class, gender and ecology as three parts of the state’s
hegemonic struggle. He explicates this by tracing the crisis of
unemployment and masculinities in Vancouver and the subsequent enrollment of unemployed men into relief camps. He argues
that through relief work the state attempted to jointly remake the
class and gender identity of the unemployed at the same time that
it was re-charting the direction of the forest industry towards sustained-yield forestry. Taken together, they demonstrate how a
Gramscian sensibility might reanimate some of the core concerns
within political ecology and how this, in turn, might be taken forward as a struggle to remake our world through fundamentally
more just socio-ecological relationships.
4. Summary of papers
In a variety of different ways, the papers in this collection take
up these disparate themes. Focussing on the territorial zoning policies of the Columbian state, Asher and Ojeda demonstrate the
ways in which nature – understood as a socio-natural assemblage
– is enrolled in processes of state formation. Ordenamiento Territorial is central to the re-working of relations with nature and stabilising a fragile hegemony in Columbia. For Loftus, this relational
way of thinking suggests a reconsideration of the way in which
everyday environments are terrains over which hegemony is both
consolidated and contested. Thus, reworking everyday socio-natural relations can serve as a starting point for a radically democratic,
transformative politics. He demonstrates this through artistic
interventions in London that transform everyday urban environments into laboratories for radical experimentation.
Picking up on relatively under-researched aspects of Gramsci’s
writings, the paper by Wainwright and Mercer looks instead to
the arguments mobilised within the scientific community over
transgenic maize in Mexico. They seek to show how Gramsci, while
refusing to reduce science to ideology, is nevertheless concerned
with the porous boundaries between science and politics. Gramsci
demonstrates this porousness is constitutive of both science and
politics, and in the essential role of science in forging a new conception of the world. Mann’s paper considers what light an engagement with Gramsci might shed on political ecology’s inconsistent
relation with its Marxian roots. Focusing on the problem of what
it means to do ‘materialist’ political ecology today, he argues that
a renewed commitment to historical materialism, as Gramsci con-
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Scott Prudham for unstinting support, encouragement and detailed comments throughout this project. Several of
the papers were initially presented at the 2007 meeting of the
AAG in San Francisco in which Stefan Kipfer and Katie Meehan both
served as discussants.
References
Arrighi, G., 2007. Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-First Century.
Verso, New York.
Buttigieg, J., 1991. Preface. In: Gramsci, A. (Ed.), Prison Notebooks, vol. I. Columbia
University Press, New York, pp. ix–xix.
Buttigieg, J., 2007. Preface. In: Gramsci, A. (Ed.), Prison Notebooks, vol. I. Columbia
University Press, New York, pp. vii–xii.
Caprotti, F., 2009. China’s cleantech landscape: the renewable energy technology
paradox. Sustainable Development Law and Policy 9 (2).
Cohen, S., 2004. Planting Nature: Trees and the Manipulation of Environmental
Stewardship in America. University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA.
Eagleton, T., 1991. Ideology: An Introduction. Verso, London and New York.
Ekers, M., Loftus, A., 2008. The power of water: developing dialogues between
Foucault and Gramsci. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 26 (4),
698–718.
Fontana, B., 1996. The concept of nature in Gramsci. Philosophical Forum 27 (3),
220–243.
Fonte, J., 2001. Why there is a culture war: Gramsci and Tocqueville in America.
Policy Review 104.
Gramsci, A., 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci.
Lawrence and Wishart, London.
Gramsci, A., 1977. Selections from Political Writings, 1910–1920. International
Publishers, New York.
Author's personal copy
M. Ekers et al. / Geoforum 40 (2009) 287–291
Hall, S., 1996. Gramsci’s relevance for the study of race and ethnicity. In: Morley, D.,
Chen, K.-H. (Eds.), Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. Routledge,
London and New York, pp. 411–446.
Loftus, A., Lumsden, F., 2008. Reworking hegemony in the urban waterscape.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 33 (1), 109–126.
Marx, K., 1975. Early Writings. Penguin, London.
Moore, D., 1996. Marxism, culture, and political ecology: environmental struggles in
Zimbabwe’s Eastern highlands. In: Peet, R., Watts, M. (Eds.), Liberation
291
Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements. Routledge, London,
pp. 125–147.
Swyngedouw, E., 2007. Technonatural revolutions: the scalar politics of Franco’s
hydro-social dream for Spain, 1939–1975. Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers 31 (1), 9–28.
Wainwright, J., 2005. The geographies of political ecology: after Edward Said.
Environment and Planning A 37 (6), 1033–1043.
Yeh, E., 2009. From wasteland to wetland? Nature and nation in China’s Tibet.
Environmental History 14 (1), 103–137.