Beyond subject-making: Conflicting humanisms, class analysis, and the “dark side” of Gramscian political ecology

Abstract

This article examines conflicting conceptualizations of the human subject in political ecology and geography: Foucauldian views of “subject-making” and Gramscian views of “the person”. While Foucauldian work holds that the more complete exertion of power, the more coherent subject-making, Gramscian historical–geographical perspectives counter that, the more complete exertion of power, the more incoherent persons and their class-based collectivities. Outlining incongruities between these approaches, I argue that the “dark side” of Gramscian political ecology—with its emphasis on incoherence and fracture–allows geographers new nuance in understanding the human subject, although not without challenges to the actual writing of such scholarship.

Conservation partnership implementation: endangered animal extinction mitigation strategy in Indonesia’s Way Kambas Park

“…The studies explain that the leading cause of the government's failure of conservation programs the neglect of the important role of local communities. Local knowledge and local skills are potentially important for the success of conservation programs [23,24,25,26].…”

Territorial subjectivities. The missing link between political subjectivity and territorialization

“…In current debates on geographies of political agency, scholars move beyond “assumption[s] about a political actor who has agency and who is located in the city” (Hoffman, 2014: 1576) to invoke more complex conceptualizations of a situated social subject (see also Holloway et al, 2018; Kuus, 2019; Loftus, 2020; Pile, 2008). Furthermore, many studies in human geography and beyond (e.g., Dawney, 2013; Jakobson, 2022) are inspired by Michel Foucault’s writings on biopolitics and governmentality (Foucault, 1987, 2006). They focus mostly on power and subjects, less on spatial questions.…”

Hegemonía: una aproximación conceptual al análisis del poder en ecología política

“…Es decir, como sinónimo de dominación o supremacía. Son pocos los textos que usan este término a nivel tórico (Alonso Serna, 2020;Andreucci, 2019;Ekers y Col., 2009;García López y Col., 2017;Jakobsen, 2022), particularmente en nuestro idioma (Castellanos Navarrete, 2018;Latta y Sasso, 2014;Macip, 2015). Esto no sorprende si tenemos en cuenta la forma en que fue desarrollado.…”