Groundwater governmentality: hegemony and technologies of resistance in Rajasthan's (India) groundwater governance

Abstract

Globally, decentralisation has become the dominant paradigm for environmental governance. This paper explores the linkages between green governmentality approaches to subjectivity and Gramscian notions of hegemony to examine recent efforts in Rajasthan, India to decentralise groundwater governance through targeted formal regulations and outreach activities, such as water awareness campaigns (Jal Abhiyaan). The latter seeks to alter the beliefs and practices of farmers by institutionalising their support for state groundwater conservation efforts, including privatisation. The paper draws on household surveys and interviews with farmers and government agents to examine the relationship between the political economic motivations for and practices of state subject‐making and differential resistance to these efforts based on farmers’ multiple subject positions. Findings suggest, first, that the state is motivated through its monetary and advisory relationship with donor agencies, such as the World Bank. Through both outreach activities and coercion, it attempts to gain ‘consent’ for its proposals, which devolve state control rather than truly decentralising decision‐making, to make self‐conducting and willing subjects of specifically neoliberal groundwater conservation. But, second, these attempts are being resisted by some farmers through protests, informal discussions, non‐participation, and the collectivisation of access to groundwater and irrigation through irrigation partnerships. Third, resistance to these efforts, or support for them, is different between farmers based on their multiple subjectivities (caste, class and ecological conditions). The paper advances both our understanding of the processes of environmental subject‐making and of the devolution of environmental governance, by integrating the lessons from governmentality and Gramscian approaches to social power and subjectivity.

From Being a Problem to Having Problems: Discourse, Governmentality and Chinese Migrant Workers

“…Instead, different discourses engage in a continuous struggle to fix the meaning of the social. While governmentality scholars have already demonstrated how individuals and groups distort and resist governmental projects [see for instance [1,11,15,31,44], I argue in this article that discourse theory offers an additional perspective that is well suited to analyze how governmentality is contested. In particular, the use of discourse analysis opens up for examining not only how subjects of government themselves contest governmental projects, but also the media's role in such contestations.…”

“…The result, however, is not a complete elimination of socialist control, but rather a socialist-liberal governmentality that selectively combines liberal rationalities, technologies and subjects with traditional socialist forms of governing. 1 For instance, the household registration (hukou) system -which was implemented in 1958 -remains in place, but its function is no longer to limit rural-urban migration, but rather to regulate access to welfare services ( [55], 51). 2 Because hukou registration is tied to birthplace, migrant workers can only access health care, education, and other social benefits in the rural areas where they are registered.…”

“We Don’t Take the Pledge”: Environmentality and environmental skepticism at the epicenter of US wind energy development

“…Scholars have incorporated environmentality into thematic areas as diverse as groundwater management (Birkenholtz, 2009), biological conservation (Fletcher, 2010), and climate change (Dowling, 2010). In an investigation of decentralized whitebait fishery management in Southland, New Zealand, Haggerty (2007) used the idea of environmentality to frame an inquiry into why actors come to think and act in relation to what they identify as the environment.…”

La Construcción del Poder Hídrico: Agroexportadores y Escasez de Agua Subterránea en el valle de Ica y Villacurí

“…En la gestión pública del agua, esto se ha traducido en la promoción de una «cultura de agua» 15 . Sin embargo, el Estado falla en incorporar esta cultura en la práctica de los agroexportadores, dado que el poder regulador y sancionador estatal, necesario para imponer la agenda de conservación del agua subterránea de Ica (Agrawal, 2005;Birkenholtz, 2009), se ve sobrepasado por el poder hídrico agroexportador y su agenda económica-productiva. En este escenario, el discurso de la eficiencia es apropiado y manipulado por los agroexportadores, quienes a la vez que sobreexplotan el acuífero son considerados como usuarios eficientes que generan divisas y, por lo tanto, tienen intereses coin-cidentes con el Estado.…”