Why are Students Attracted to Political Ecology? - SAGE Journals

Environment and Planning A 2008, volume 40, pages 2539 ^ 2543

doi:10.1068/a41154

Commentary

Why are students attracted to political ecology? Over the last two decades course offerings on the subject of political ecology, mainly within geography, have increased both at undergraduate and at graduate levels in many North American universities and beyond. This is to be expected given the noticeable increase in academic writing on this subject over the same period. What is unexpected, however, is the absence of any sign that political ecology is attaining the level of recognition as a coherent field of study that is given to many other emerging academic specializations. For example, focus areas such as the relatively new field of international development studies have a number of foundational texts aimed both at undergraduate and at graduate levels (eg Corbridge, 1995; Cowen and Shenton, 1996; Sumner and Tribe, 2008; Woolcock, 2007). In contrast, there are just a handful of political ecology texts (eg Neumann, 2005; Robbins, 2004) or articles dealing with the pedagogical aspects (eg Jarosz, 2004; Zerner, 1998). Most books lean towards debates about its value as a framework for research (Bryant and Bailey, 1997), or present case studies that apply a political ecology approach to the study of environmental relations (Leach and Mearns, 1996; Peet and Watts, 2004). Additionally, as evidenced by recent reviews in the journals Political Geography (Bryant and Jarosz, 2004), Environment and Planning A (McCarthy, 2005), Progress in Human Geography (Walker, 2005; 2006; 2007), Geography Compass (Jones, 2008), and Geoforum (Muldavin, 2008; Robbins and Bishop, 2008), political ecology as a field struggles with its own identity, and this has led to disillusionment among some of its scholars. Given what appears to be the problem of political ecology in establishing itself formally in postsecondary institutions, we are interested in the question ``Why does political ecology, as a course of study, continue to attract students?'' Surveys or in-depth qualitative studies are needed to provide a complete answer, so all we can do here is to share some preliminary observations and thoughts on this question that might provide some clarification of the issues and inform such studies. Our curiosity with this question was stimulated by interactions we have had with colleagues and with students participating in a political ecology graduate seminar in our department. We thought that some of the statements recently made by faculty and students in our department could be helpful starting points as we ponder the attractiveness of political ecology to students. These include a senior colleague in our department who recently said ``I notice that many of my colleagues describe their work as political ecology. I had abandoned using this terminology. Maybe I should begin to claim it back''; a PhD student participating in a graduate seminar on the political ecology of African environments who remarked to the professor during an introductory session that: ``From my preliminary reading and the introduction that you are giving us, it appears that there is no clear epistemological foundation for political ecology''; or another PhD student in response to the professor's question about why the students had chosen to take a course on political ecology declared, ``I am taking this course because of its subtitle. I would have taken it even if it was not called political ecology. I am simply interested in African environmental issues.'' In addition to other issues that we discuss later, we believe that the `label' of `political ecology', questions about epistemology of the subfield, and the way courses of political ecology are designed and taught, which the faculty member and the two students alluded to above, all partly

2540

Commentary

explain the attraction of political ecology courses to students. While our focus here is on students, it was not always easy to distinguish political ecology's attractiveness to students from its wider appeal to other researchers dealing with human ^ environment relations. We discuss these below, beginning with the label of `political ecology'. We believe there has to be something special, and indeed attractive to students and other scholars, about the `terminology' or the `label' of `political ecology'. Critical writing on political ecology has indicated that the term has indeed provided a label of convenience for many scholars working on human ^ environmental research (Vayda and Walters, 1999, page 168; Walker, 2005, pages 73, 75). This scholarship, especially that of Walker (2005; 2006; 2007) and Robbins and Bishop (2008), notes the historical upsurge, then decline or unease with, and recent upsurge again of, the use of the `political ecology' label, both in self-identity and in characterization of research. This is exactly the trend that the faculty member's statement captures. This oscillation in the acceptability of the label may be partly a response to a strong critique of political ecology research as not being `ecological' enough (Vayda and Walters, 1999). But given the barrage of criticisms against political ecology for not engaging enough with `ecology', the questions arise: ``What is the continuing fascination with `political ecology', especially among university students? Why has it been revived?'' One answer would appear to be that the `political' aspect of the label is what makes it attractive to many students. If `political' is the attractive aspect of the label, why not simply use the `political economy' (of the environment) label. After all, it is one of the several foundational sources of political ecology. However, we realize that `political economy' is both a clumsy and a restrictive phrase for accommodating all that is now known as political ecology. We also note that even the harshest critics of political ecology (Vayda and Walters, 1999), who dismiss it as a misleading concept because it largely ignores ecological issues, could not stay away from suggesting their own label of `evenmental or `event ecology' to describe, in our view, a research agenda and approach that is essentially similar to what is done by most political ecologists. `Evenmental' is at best an awkward phrase, that to our knowledge has attracted almost no attention. In fact, if the set of research concerns, concepts, and approaches set out by Bryant (1992) in his landmark article, which recognizes environmental justice as the core of the subfield of political ecology, remains essentially unchanged, then there seems to be no reason to reconsider the use of the word `political'. Not only is it a key aspect of what most political ecologists do, but recent writing has argued (Muldavin, 2008; Walker, 2005) that the label is attractive to scholars and students. Clearly, describing one's work as political ecology, rather than event ecology, cultural ecology, rural geography, or any other label used by scholars working to understand the relationship between environmental and social change, says much about the political commitments of that work. Thus, the label of `political ecology', through its unabashed commitment to issues of social justice, allows students and other scholars to position their work at the cutting edges of critical geography; whereas other labels perhaps identify scholars consciously distancing themselves from those edges. Like our senior colleague, we believe that students use the label of `political ecology' to be strategic, as well as sensitive to how their work is viewed by others, especially if they see themselves as future academics. While certainly strong in its political commitments, political ecology appears to lack a certain theoretical coherence; something which is echoed by one of the PhD students mentioned above. We feel that this suspicion points to something potentially discouraging for students looking to solidify their identity as scholars, as well as to something that is perhaps one of the most intriguing aspects of the subdiscipline to aspiring scholars. We understand that for some students looking to add greater definition to their work, political ecology may appear disheartening for its lack of

Commentary

2541

any cohesive theoretical orientation and clear epistemological foundation. However, while this lack undermines the case for political ecology as a unified subdiscipline, and so raises the fundamental questions of its applicability (McCarthy, 2005), importance, and pedagogical value, it also explains why it remains a fluid and vibrant field of knowledge, especially for students, some of whom may be aspiring academics. Walker (2006, page 389), drawing on Watts (2003), underscores the fact that political ecology ``should celebrate its diversity''. Watts has argued that the subdiscipline has opened up an unbounded space to conceptualize human ^ nature relations and challenge environmental categories, despite, or even because of, its lack of a codified epistemology. An important group of scholars from the 1990s on has been keen to move beyond epistemological fuzziness and to tap into the rich and multidisciplinary theoretical influences on political ecology (Bryant and Bailey, 1997; Neumann, 2005). We suggest that political ecology is attractive to students in disciplines as diverse as geography, sociology, and environmental science because it provides a means to reflect on the sociopolitical dimension of environmental change, while giving access to a wide range of methods and theories (McCarthy, 2005). In other words, the absence of strict theoretical underpinnings can be understood as strength, and the popularity of political ecology lies in its capacity for exploiting the productive intersections of different forms of knowledge about the environment (Zimmerer, 2007). It has carved its niche in the production of knowledge as a flexible multidisciplinary space unconstrained by an a priori research agenda. Pedagogically, political ecology can rightfully claim to mirror the ``messy, constrained world outside'' the academy (Walker, 2006, page 388, quoting Blaikie). The fact that political ecology lacks a sophisticated codified epistemology and is, in fact, a contested intellectual space, accommodates a wide swath of student research interests. More than that, this quality opens the door, in ways that more intellectually policed subdisciplines do not, for creative understandings to the nexus of society and the environment. As broad and accommodating as political ecology is, earlier writing has shown that it does have consistent defining elements. Jones (2008, page 2) does a good job of summarizing these when she states that political ecology is characterized by attention to ecological dynamics; a sensitivity to the role of the state and the wider global economy in shaping environmental change; emphasis on social difference, especially among decision makers; the acknowledgement of the centrality of poverty and inequality as key factors affecting environmental change; and ``contextual analysis of multiple scales of influence''. We believe that, while these characteristics do not necessarily create boundaries, they do what most students tend to appreciate öprovide some direction and pointers for beginners in the field. How these characteristics or issues of politics and epistemology are dealt with or discussed within political ecology courses points to another aspect of strength of the subdiscipline in terms of attracting students. It seems that the second PhD student, mentioned above, is not alone in his attraction to a political ecology course because of the topic it addresses. A cursory search of syllabi of political ecology courses offered in various universities across the globe indicates that the teaching of political ecology through an in-depth exploration of a specific issue seems to be quite a popular approach. Even the popular introductory textbook [Robbins's (2004) Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction] discusses the subject through `issues' or case studies. This approach exploits a significant strength of political ecology alluded to in the previous paragraphs: namely, the rejection of disciplinary barriers in the attempt to understand the complexity of environmental change. With the exploration of political ecology through issues, such as African environments or land claims, courses attract not only students interested in political ecology, but also those more expressly interested in the

2542

Commentary

specific topic that the given course is attempting to explore. In practice, this brings a range of students' interests into a productive dialogue. In this respect, the classroom or seminar can mirror the core principles of political ecology. As Blaikie (1999, page 131) explains, ``By internalizing diverse notions from its eclectic origins, political ecology is able to throw light on new contradictions and paradoxes that are brought together from different networks of scholars, activists, and other actors.'' These contradictions and paradoxes are especially evident in a classroom discussion between students from diverse disciplinary backgrounds. It is precisely this ability to foster what Belsky (2002, page 269) calls a ``trans-disciplinary perspective'' that makes the study of political ecology so fundamental in the attempt to understand environmental change. As geographers, we feel that the strength of political ecology lies both in its ability to attract diverse students and in its ability to clarify environmental issues through its open-minded perspective. In this it is comparable to geography as a discipline. Geography works towards an understanding of place and space that transcends disciplinary bias, and allows for nuance and flexibility. Similarly, students are attracted to political ecology, we argue, precisely because of its attempt to explain the complex processes of environmental change by drawing on diverse theories and practices that bridge social and natural sciences. So despite some unease with its use as a `label' of convenience, we believe that political ecology will remain attractive to students because its fuzzy epistemological foundations and reliance on `issues' or case studies allow environmental problems to be understood not only in their transdisciplinary complexity but also in terms of environmental justice (Forsyth, 2008). The ability to attract students is perhaps a prerequisite for any new subfield or discipline seeking to establish itself in mainstream academia. The issues we have discussed above, which we argue are behind political ecology's upsurge within university courses, are partly responsible for advancing it beyond its earlier designation as a `research agenda' (Bryant, 1992), to an additional, yet complementary, status as a university academic discipline. The growth of the Cultural and Political Ecology specialty group of the Association of American Geographers (AAG) so that it is now one of the largest, for example, is a consequence of new graduate student members who are interested in political ecology. Using this example, and given that many of these specialty groups of the AAG revolve around research, it is important to acknowledge another reason why students might be attracted to political ecology. We believe that a great deal of the best recent research on people ^ environment relations within geography, anthropology, political studies, and other cognate disciplines, has been done under the label of political ecology. It therefore follows that students who look at the work done over the last two decades in this field would seek to emulate it by also doing political ecology research. It therefore makes sense that these students would seek to take courses that relate to their research interests. In conclusion, given our speculation about the reasons behind the attractiveness of political ecology to students, despite the challenges faced by the subfield, we believe that there is a need to invest in enhancing these attractive characteristics discussed above, if political ecology is to establish itself in universities. Current and future students, as well as instructors, of political ecology can contribute to this goal by being conscious of what makes the field attractive, and by being deliberate in their commitment to it. Lastly, as shown by the popularity of Robbins's (2004) introductory textbook, there is clear thirst for writing that is accessible and which can attract new entrants to the field of political ecology. Thembela Kepe, Jean-FrancËois Bissonnette, David J Roberts Department of Geography, University of Toronto

Commentary

2543

Acknowledgements. The authors appreciate the helpful comments of Tor Arve Benjaminsen, Ted Relph, and the editors of Environment and Planning A on earlier drafts of this paper. The usual disclaimers apply. References Belsky J M, 2002, ``Beyond the natural resource and environmental sociology divide: insights from a transdiciplinary perspective'' Society and Natural Resources 15 269 ^ 280 Blaikie P M, 1999, ``A review of political ecology: issues, epistemology, and analytical narratives'' Zeitschrift fu«r Wirtschaftsgeographie 43 131 ^ 147 Bryant R L, 1992, ``Political ecology: an emerging research agenda in Third-World studies'' Political Geography 11 12 ^ 36 Bryant R L, Bailey S, 1997 Third World Political Ecology (Routledge, London) Bryant R, Jarosz L, 2004, ``Ethics in political ecology: a special issue of Political Geography: introduction: thinking about ethics in political ecology'' Political Geography 23 807 ^ 812 Corbridge S (Ed.), 1995 Development Studies: A Reader (Arnold, London) Cowen M P, Shenton R W, 1996 Doctrines of Development (Routledge, New York) Forsyth T, 2008, ``Political ecology and the epistemology of social justice'' Geoforum 39 756 ^ 764 Jarosz L, 2004, ``Political ecology as ethical practice'' Political Geography 23 917 ^ 927 Jones S, 2008, ``Political ecology and land degradation: how does the land lie 21 years after Blaikie and Brookfield's Land Degradation and Society?'' Geography Compass 2 1 ^ 24 Leach M, Mearns R, 1996, ``Environmental change and policy: challenging received wisdom in Africa'', in The Lie of the Land: Challenging the Received Wisdom on the African Environment Eds M Leach, R Mearns (James Currey, Oxford) pp 1 ^ 33 McCarthy J, 2005, ``First World political ecology; directions and challenges'' Environment and Planning A 37 953 ^ 958 Muldavin J, 2008, ``The time and place of political ecology: an introduction to the articles honoring the life-work of Piers Blaikie'' Geoforum 39 687 ^ 697 Neumann R, 2005 Making Political Ecology (Hodder Arnold, New York) Peet R,Watts M (Eds), 2004 Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development and Social Movements 2nd edition (Routledge, London) Robbins P, 2004 Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction (Blackwell, Oxford) Robbins P, Bishop K M, 2008, ``There and back again: epiphany, disillusionment, and rediscovery in political ecology'' Geoforum 39 747 ^ 755 Sumner A, Tribe M A, 2008 International Development Studies: Theories and Methods in Research and Practice (Sage, London) Vayda A P, Walters B B, 1999, ``Against political ecology'' Human Ecology 27 167 ^ 179 Walker P, 2005, ``Political ecology: where is the ecology?'' Progress in Human Geography 29 73 ^ 82 Walker P, 2006, ``Political ecology: where is the policy?'' Progress in Human Geography 30 382 ^ 395 Walker P A, 2007, ``Political ecology: where is the politics?'' Progress in Human Geography 31 363 ^ 369 Watts M, 2003, ``For political ecology'', unpublished manuscript, Department of Geography, University of California, Berkeley, CA Woolcock M, 2007, ``Higher education, policy schools and development studies: what should masters degree students be taught?'' Journal of International Development 19 55 ^ 73 Zerner C, 1998, ``Nature and narrative: environmental discourses, property, and power: a graduate seminar environmental concentration'' Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 9 129 ^ 141 Zimmerer K S, 2007, ``Cultural ecology (and political ecology) in the `environmental borderlands': exploring the expanded connectivities within geography'' Progress in Human Geography 31 227 ^ 244

ß 2008 Pion Ltd and its Licensors