2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.04.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

In search of common ground: Political ecology and conservation in the development age

Abstract: In this essay, we respond to Menon and Karthik's recent comments on our earlier critical review, which appeared in this journal. We clarify some of our original arguments and also draw out practical implications of the conceptual interventions made earlier. Specifically, we draw attention to the common ground shared by political ecology and the social formation of conservation by pointing to why conservation becomes necessary in the first place. We thus urge for a refocusing of political ecological attention f… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Hinchcliff (2008) asserts that political ecology should look beyond presence, inclusion or accumulation and more carefully consider "uncertainties, precautionary measures and looser forms of assemblage" [19] (p. 89). A growing body of literature addresses political ecology's anthropocentrism, and poses related questions of how the approach could be opened up to post-human geographies [20,21]. In their recent political ecology study of tiger conservation in India, Margulies and Bersaglio (2018) use myths as a conceptual tool to analyse power asymmetries.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hinchcliff (2008) asserts that political ecology should look beyond presence, inclusion or accumulation and more carefully consider "uncertainties, precautionary measures and looser forms of assemblage" [19] (p. 89). A growing body of literature addresses political ecology's anthropocentrism, and poses related questions of how the approach could be opened up to post-human geographies [20,21]. In their recent political ecology study of tiger conservation in India, Margulies and Bersaglio (2018) use myths as a conceptual tool to analyse power asymmetries.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This debate centers around whether political ecology, in consistently levelling critiques at conservation practices rather than the broader development agendas through which conservation has emerged, fails to attend to the many kinds of lives (human as well as non-human) that often suffer as a result of uneven development (Srinivasan and Kasturirangan 2016;Menon and Karthik 2016). What concerns Srinivasan and Kasturirangan (2017) is that this anthropocentrism in political ecology seems to have produced the outcome that "conservation, and nonhuman life more generally, thus become scapegoats in conflicts between different human groups" (87). In sum, their concern is that political ecology eschews the politics of the animal in theorizing justice.…”
Section: Bringing In the Animalmentioning
confidence: 99%