Godfrey 1 A Political Ecology Framework: Easy to Visualize, Difficult to Realize By Elaine Godfrey Article Critique Professor Anthony Thickett DEV 3005, Contemporary Issues of the Third World July 29, 2012 Godfrey 2 The framework suggested in Arturo Escobar’s “Difference and Conflict in the Struggle over Natural Resources: A political ecology framework” is a welcome approach to viewing and understanding escalating environmental conflicts worldwide. The author succeeds not only in making clear the need to differentiate between contrasting approaches to environmental issues, but also in enabling the reader to visualize those different methodologies and fully grasp the relationship between each. However, this framework doesn’t seem to be particularly unique or revolutionary, and taken as a whole, it seems to serve only as a means of distinguishing viewpoints and offering a supremely optimistic, rather than practical, dream of a future society. Escobar’s point is simple enough: He is stressing the idea that the struggles of subaltern societies must be heard and addressed equally, within a suggested political ecology framework, in order to achieve a successful pluralistic society. Or, as he mentions in the final paragraph, a sense of “peace-with-justice (Escobar 13).” This suggested framework includes the recognition of three main dimensions of environmental conflict: economic distribution, ecological distribution, and the emerging cultural component within specific environmental issues. He uses one, albeit vague, example of “any rainforest in the world (7)” to illustrate these three dimensions. In describing the dominance of the issues of economic distribution within the realm of environmental conflict, he refers to the rainforest’s local economy becoming monetized and market-driven in order to support development. In the ecological dimension, he describes the compromising of complex rainforest ecosystems in favor of modern plantations and pastures; and finally, in the cultural aspect, he emphasizes the changing of local identities to “resemble dominant modern cultures (7).” Each of the three dimensions of conflict, he stresses, is intertwined but must be seen as inherently different. Different but equal. But his ‘suggested framework’ is more of a clarification and critique of neo-liberal approaches to environmental conflict than it is a particularly unique or monumental idea. Four years before Escobar’s article was published, the 2002 UNESCO World Summit “Roundtable on Cultural Diversity and Biodiversity for Sustainable Development” discussed and reported on a similar concept, one that considered the broad dimensions of cultural diversity and biodiversity to be equally important in the Godfrey 3 development of a country. Anthropologist and author of the section entitled “Diversity and Sustainable Development,” Dr. Arjun Appadurai stresses the need to link both cultural and biodiversity: “…by definition, biodiversity requires the proliferation and protection of many ecological regimes and environmental balances. Human beings are the key movers in such balances…Thus cultural diversity is a powerful guarantee of biodiversity. Together, these two kinds of diversity are the best counterpoint to the…uniformity that might result if market-driven globalization is allowed to run its own course.(Appadurai).” And, just as Escobar explains that the aim of his framework is to “demystify the theory that ignores subaltern experiences and knowledge of the local economy, environment, and culture (11),” in order to better understand and manage globalization, the UNESCO report offered the same message, saying, “It is time to give an economic value to this knowledge and to the genetic resources so carefully nurtured by indigenous peoples…A sustainable society can only be achieved through the participation and empowerment of all peoples (Appadurai).” Although Escobar’s reiteration is perhaps useful to enable members of the academic community to more clearly conceptualize the problem with development through unfair distribution on the three dimensions of political ecology, it offers nothing new in the way of development theory. Escobar’s suggestion that achieving a better understanding of the interrelationship between the economical, ecological, and cultural dimensions of environmental conflict will help the world to reach this sense of peace and “plurality of knowledges (13)” is a plausible theory. But it is nothing more than that: a theory. In his conclusion, Escobar poses several weak but well-intentioned proposals for redressing the environmental issues surrounding modern development, but, however well-intentioned, these recommendations offer no practical idea for how to go about achieving this idealistic concept of peace-with-justice. The first suggestion made is the need to “limit cultural dominance in key institutions (11).” Escobar specifies, in particular, those institutions concerning global policy, conservation, and economic development. But he offers no precise way of limiting this cultural dominance, no strategy to reduce the detrimental effects of Westernization on indigenous cultures and ecosystems. This is particularly surprising because the issue of cultural hegemony is both an obvious and quite well-known debate within Godfrey 4 the realm of globalization. Escobar’s repetition of the issue and advice that we must simply “redress” it, is both redundant and useless, without the presence of some sort of detailed solution. Escobar continues by mentioning that it is also important to continue the action of non-dominant cultural forms, ones which are less “individualistic” and therefore, not as threatening to the uniqueness of a culture or environment. This is an interesting point; he describes the emphasis that should be placed on the creation of dialogue and space for these cultural forms, suggesting a need for new educational strategies – even an “entire pedagogy of difference (11)” – to support this. However, in suggesting that certain aspects of cultural and economic modernization should be given more focus, Escobar fails to specify which cultural forms could be considered non-dominant. Even in his example of continuing to encourage the development of gender policy, Escobar is unsuccessful in explaining how, exactly, this “pedagogy” will be developed, and what other holistic cultural forms might be embraced. In his final “call to action,” the author makes the recommendation that worldwide support must be given to organizations and social movements whose aim is to support pluralistic societies. These movements are ones which create visions of basic rights, alternative and non-capitalist practices, and sustainable ecological processes. This advice, although intended to guide and empower, inspires nothing but further questions, leaving the reader to ask “Which social movements, specifically?” The first words of the suggestion offer hope that the reader may be given some clue as to what cause should be endorsed, but when Escobar fails to offer any more information, it makes one wonder if such a specific social movement exists, and why, at the risk of providing more useless advice, he bothered mentioning it at all. Arturo Escobar’s framework for approaching environmental conflict is straightforward, wellsupported, and easily accepted. It makes the suggestion that in order to begin the process of achieving peace and successful development, the interrelated dimensions of economy, ecology, and culture must be considered equally, along with the place-based experience and knowledge of local people. While this idea is perfectly conceivable in theory, however, Escobar provides the academic community with no practical idea for how to combat this neo-liberal globalization imbalance. His vague suggestions seem to be simply common sense, with no guidelines or details as to how the three dimensions of environmental Godfrey 5 conflict might be viewed more equally or in what ways the voices and expertise of local people might be better heard. And although Escobar did an adequate job of clarifying the key issues under the scope of neo-liberal modernization, announcing to the reader that it is no longer acceptable to deny people the right to their own culture, ecology, and economy, seemed to be, for the most part, redundant. The political ecology framework presented in “Difference and Conflict” is made to look like a true, academic breakthrough, when upon closer inspection, it is found to contain nothing but a restructuring of the same, already-debated issues, providing no real contribution to the field of sustainable development. Godfrey 6 Works Cited Appadurai, Arjun. "Diversity and Sustainable Development." Proc. of Cultural Diversity and Biodiversity for Sustainable Development, South Africa, Johannesburg. 2002. 16-19. Cultural diversity and biodiversity for sustainable development. UNESCO, Jan. 2003. Accessed: 27 July 2012. <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001322/132262e.pdf>. Escobar, Arturo. "Difference and Conflict in the Struggle Over Natural Resources: A Political Ecology Framework." Development 49.3 (2006): 6-13. Accessed: July 2012.