The affective labor of growing forests and the becoming of environmental subjects: Rethinking environmentality in Odisha, India

Constitutionality: Conditions for Crafting Local Ownership of Institution-Building Processes

“…Specifically, he attempts to demonstrate that members participating in village forest councils in India have incorporated and internalized governmental notions of the protection of forests and have become subjects of a conservation ideology defined by the government, adopting its values. However, this framework has been criticized from a number of perspectives: Fletcher's (2010) delineation of multiple discrete environmentalities in competing approaches to conservation policy; Cepek's (2011) Marxist treatment of apparent compliance with conservation initiatives despite alienation as a result of local calculation of interests; and Singh's (2013) highlighting of affect, emotion, and embodied practices, as opposed to the techniques of governmentality, in shaping environmental subjectivity. Acciaioli (2008b) uses practice theory to present another critique of this approach, focusing on the strategic actions of individuals and interest groups on different scales in the Lore Lindu National Park in Indonesia.…”

Making a difference: Forest biodiversity, affective capacities, and the micro-politics of expert fieldwork

“…Affects can actually be viewed as a form of power because they drive and motivate usor discourage and make us passive. Many scholars have emphasised affective potential in achieving societal change (Cupples and Ridley, 2008;Singh, 2013;Thrift, 2008) and the role of ''corporeal capacities'' and ''the vitality of bodies'' in political life in general (Braun and Whatmore, 2010).…”

“…She argues that disciplinary practices are often believed to create fixed environmental subjectivities and neglect the emergent capacities for transformation. In her account of community forestry in India, environmental stewardship was the outcome of the ''dialectics of the positive'' and the joy from care practices that acted as a transformational force (Singh, 2013).…”

“…In particular, our goal is to explore how the affective craft of making biodiversity present in forestry is connected to the tools of governing that reorganise expert fieldwork. This allows us to explore the affective aspect of governing, which has arguably been neglected in studies on environmental governance (Cupples and Ridley, 2008;Singh, 2013;Braun and Whatmore, 2010).…”

Land als Ressource, Boden und Landschaft: Materialität, Relationalität und neue Agrarfragen in der Politischen Ökologie

“…An der Schnittstelle von (teilweise marginalisierten) Lebenswissenschaften, STS und den Diskursen indigener und alternativer Praktiker entsteht eine neue Sprache, die wir für richtungsweisend für eine nicht-reduktionistische Politische Ökologie der Landwirtschaft halten. Ökologie und biophysische Prozesse erfahren eine neue Aufmerksamkeit in der politischen Ökologie (Engel-Di Mauro, 2014) indem Landbau konsequent als ein mehr-als-menschliches Unterfangen beschrieben wird, in dem Menschen mit zahllosen sichtbaren und unsichtbaren Arten symbiotisch und interdependent in einem "entanglement of life-propagating relations" (Ly-3 Mit dem Begriff Affekt verweisen wir auf neuere Forschung zu affektiven Ökologien, wie sie etwa 2015 auf der Tagung der American Association of Geographers in Chicago von Neera Singh, Daniel Münster und zahlreichen weiteren Forscherinnen und Forschern als eine politische Ökologie vorgestellt wurde, die, aufbauend auf dem Werk der Philosophen Spinoza, sowie Deleuze und Guattari [thousand plateaus], relationalen Ontologien und vitalen Materialitäten verpflichtet ist (Singh, 2013). "To the extent that affect is about how changes in one body (a nation, a habitat, a farmer, a monkey) result in transformations in other bodies, affective ecologies enable a nuanced understanding of complex relations with a focus on perpetual adjustments and motion."…”