Introduction

1Political ecology refers to a diversity of theoretical and methodological approaches to socioecological relations that share a common interest in questions related to the politics of natural resource management, access, and control, environmental knowledge, and their interactive effects on livelihoods and environmental change dynamics. This paper highlights the major political ecological perspectives in the Anglophone literature on how nature-society relations have been conceptualized with emphasis on three main theoretical framings: (1) the environmental/social dialectic; (2) the environmental constructivism; and (3) the co-production of socionature. All three frameworks stem from critiques of how nature-society relations are theorized in explanations of diverse human-environmental problems and their solutions. Whether inspired by the reductionism of neo-Malthusian explanations of land degradation or by critiques of the notion of land degradation itself, these theoretical perspectives and related research methods illustrate the engagement of political ecologists with fundamental ontological and epistemological issues that characterize nature-society debates.

2Political ecology emerged in the 1970s and early 1980s in the context of political economic critiques of cultural ecology and systems ecology. The critique basically argued that to explain environmental degradation (e.g. soil erosion) one had to situate resource management practices, typically of smallholders in the developing world, within the broader political economy (Watts, 1983a; Blaikie, 1985). This fusion of political economic and cultural ecological perspectives became known in Anglophone geography as political ecology (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987; Bassett, 1988). The political ecological critique, initially influenced by Marxist agrarian studies, gave rise to a succession of conceptualizations of nature-society interactions. Paul Robbins identifies three distinct theoretical approaches to nature-society relations in the political ecology literature which he terms the “destruction”, “production”, and “co-production” of nature (Robbins, 2012). This paper builds upon Robbins’s chronological but also ontological and epistemological discussion by highlighting how society and nature are conceptualized in the political ecology literature over the past thirty years. This short review is by no means exhaustive. And it should not be interpreted as a summary of paradigmatic shifts, as if one framework was abandoned in favor of another. Rather, it is better to view the diverse conceptualizations as co-existing, even today, in political ecological research. In the conclusion we summarize some of the major similarities and differences in these theoretical frameworks with the hope that readers will decide in the context of their own research which socioecological conceptualization advances understanding.

The environmental/social dialectic

3The environmental/social dialectic explains environmental change (e.g. soil erosion) and vulnerability to variability (e.g. drought; market shocks) in relation to the social relations of production and exchange. This perspective combines a structuralist view of society with a positivist view of ecology. It is best represented by the political economic critiques of land degradation and famine in the global South (Watts, 1983b; Blaikie, 1985). The social theoretical basis of this framing draws on historical materialist perspectives, notably neo-Marxist (under)development studies. For example, both Blaikie and Watts draw upon Bernstein’s notion of the “simple reproduction squeeze” to theorize the political economy of soil erosion in Africa and South Asia (Bernstein, 1978). This concept refers to the processes in which farmers and pastoralists mine soils or overgraze pastures because of their dependence on commodity production (e.g. cotton or livestock sales) to meet the basic needs of household reproduction. In times of deteriorating terms of trade, when the price of inputs increases but market prices for smallholder products remain the same or decline, smallholders overuse resources despite their knowledge that this will lead to reduced productivity. Environmental degradation occurs as a result of these combined political economic and ecological processes. Degraded soils in turn contribute to the process of impoverishment as a result of declining yields. In contrast to the classic or colonial approach to land degradation and society, which blames land users for being backward and irrational and overpopulation as the main causes of environmental problems (Blaikie, 1985, p. 5360), scholars drawing on the environmental/social dialectic perspective view smallholder behavior as quite rational under adverse political-economic conditions.

4More recently, this political economic critique has engaged with research in positivist ecology that questions the notion that ecological systems return to a single “benchmark” or “steady state” (Zimmerer, 2000). New ecology, or nonequilibrium ecology, is characterized by analyses of land degradation that are conscious of the scale-dependency (spatial and temporal) of environmental degradation (Turner, 1993; Grabbatin and Rossi, 2012). The amount of “degradation” perceived is always relative to a baseline condition that will vary as the spatial and temporal boundaries of ecological analyses change (Behnke et al., 1993; Scoones, 1995). The environmental/social dialectic literature in political ecology incorporated nonequilibrium ecological ideas into their analyses as part of their critique of states and aid donors whose models and interventions are based on equilibrium assumptions about the biophysical world. For example, states and aid donors promote “new enclosure movements” to combat environmental degradation by implementing territorial conservation strategies that are intended to contain and manage environmental degradation (Zimmerer, 2000). However, these territorial strategies often fail to improve landscapes and livelihoods of resource users because they misdiagnose the temporal and spatial dimensions of environmental change dynamics (Turner, 1993; Zimmerer, 2000). The “gestion de terroirs villageois” approach is a classic example. Its advocates promote land use zoning as a solution to perceived land degradation and land use conflicts (Turner, 1999). In semi-arid areas of West Africa, this confinement of land use activities to specific zones (agricultural zone, pastoral zone) restricts the ability of mobile pastoralists to take advantage of temporally and spatially shifting rangeland resources. Reduced pastoral mobility within the confines of “gestion de terroirs villageois” zones can lead to rangeland degradation, reduced herd productivity, and increased farmer-herder conflicts (Turner, 1999).

5Research methods in the environmental/social dialectic tradition combines existing scientific studies of land degradation (e.g. soil nutrient loss, bush encroachment) with household surveys of farming systems and household budgets. The focus of analysis centers on causal explanations driving smallholder decision making to overwork the land. Explanations typically emphasize processes that link resource users to broader political economies through “chains of explanation” (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987). These multi-scale analyses place emphasis on the social relations of production and exchange within households and communities and the role of the state and other actors (e.g. merchants) in perpetuating underdevelopment. In summary, the hallmark of this political economy approach to socioecological relations is its dialectical framing of “environmental problems” in which, as Blaikie put it:

6

“environmental degradation is seen as a result of underdevelopment (of poverty, inequality and exploitation), a symptom of underdevelopment, and a cause of underdevelopment (contributing to a failure to produce, invest and improve productivity)”.

The environmental constructivist approach

7Environmental constructivist perspectives build upon post-structural framings of environment-society questions. This approach argues that accounts of environmental change (e.g. forest loss in West Africa) legitimize knowledge claims about socioecological relations that simultaneously legitimize power relations (Fairhead and Leach, 1996). These accounts typically take the form of stories that simplify complex cause and effect relationships, assign blame, establish expertise, and stabilize uncertain biophysical processes (Forsyth and Walker, 2008). Environmental narratives tend to reinforce authority rather than be authoritative. Many studies draw on discourse analysis to show how environmental knowledge and social order are co-produced (Foucault, 1980; Hajer, 1995).

8James Fairhead and Melissa Leach’s work on environmental change narratives of West Africa’s tropical forests illustrates this second political ecological perspective on socioecological relations. Their book, Misreading the African landscape, reveals that state foresters in Guinea have misread landscape history, particularly forest cover (Fairhead and Leach, 1996). Foresters perceive the mosaic of forest islands at the transition between the tropical rain forest and humid savanna as remnants of a more extensive tropical forest. Influenced by the desertification theories of French colonial scientists (Aubréville, 1949), Guinean foresters blamed smallholders for destroying the forest and imposed draconian measures (prison terms, fines) to prevent further forest loss. Fairhead and Leach challenge this narrative and policy by reconstructing the environmental history of the forest-savanna mosaic. Their reading of 19^th century travel narratives combined with interdisciplinary field research and the analysis of aerial photographs and satellite images suggested an alternative reading of landscape history. The forest islands, they argued, rather than representing relicts of an historically more extensive forest, were actually expanding as a result of socioecological relations, notably tree planting and reforestation associated with changing fire regimes. Their counternarrative of forest expansion challenged state foresters’ understandings of nature-society relations and landscape history, which for a variety of intellectual and political reasons have remained remarkably resistent to such critiques.

9The environmental constructivist approach in political ecology is more recently advanced by Tim Forsyth and Andrew Walker in their work on the politics of environmental knowledge in northern Thailand. Like Fairhead and Leach, they confront environmental crisis discourses and their framings by questioning the scientific validity of representations of environmental change, in this case upland deforestation and downstream flooding and water shortages. Drawing on Hajer (1995), they show how scientific knowledge and the framing of environmental problems are tightly intertwined through the process of “problem closure” (Forsyth and Walker, 2008, p. 12). They examine the links between expertise, problem closure, and the stabilization of certain ideas that subsequently become incorporated into environmental narratives. Like Fairhead and Leach, they demonstrate how this process of environmental explanation typically excludes “local” understandings of biophysical processes to the detriment of both scientific understanding and land users who are commonly punished for their resource management practices.

10Forsyth and Walker’s work demonstrates how dominant environmental narratives often depend on simplified characterizations of ecological systems that are far more complex and uncertain than assumed. On the one hand, states and aid donors are attracted to nature-society simplifications because they provide relatively easy management rules (Turner, 1993). The “steady state” narrative helps to justify the “restoration” of and intervention in an ecological process that is assumed to be preventing the return of a “normal state” (Zimmerer, 2000; Grabbatin and Rossi, 2012; Scoones, 1999). Ironically, such (mis)representations of environmental change legitimate state and aid donor interventions on the grounds that only they have the authority and expertise to manage environment-society problems. Forsyth and Walker argue that the state (and aid donors) (re)produce themselves in the process of problem closure, policy making and implementation. The challenge, they argue, is to show how environmental narratives simplify and

11

“stabilize complex and uncertain processes of environment change; reflect, and reinforce different social orders by being based on particular valuations or experiences… [reflect] particular notions of expertise; and particular sets of ideas about which social groups should carry the burden of blame and responsibility… In other words, environmental knowledge and social order are coproduced”.

12The goals of environmental constructivist approaches are not simply to deconstruct narratives and to propose counternarratives. The objectives are to advance scientific understanding of biophysical changes and to open up this analytical process to actors like smallholders whose experience and understanding have historically been undervalued. This emphasis on popular participation in environmental governance links political ecology to institutional approaches that emphasize democratic institutions, transparency, and accountability in natural resource management (Chhatre and Saberwal, 2006; Forsyth 2011; Ribot, 2007).

13Multiple research methods are required to achieve this pluralistic understanding of socioecological processes and environmental history. Historical methods include archival research, the reading of travelers’ and scientific accounts as well as policy documents and aid donor reports, and the analysis of historical aerial photographs and maps (Fairhead and Leach, 1996, p. 16). Field methods encompass residing in communities, participant observation, focus group and key informant interviews, collecting oral histories, interviewing policy makers in various ministries and donor organizations, and collaborating with other researchers organized into interdisciplinary teams to conduct biophysical as well as social science research. Reconciling conflicting interpretations and “reading accounts both ‘in’ and ‘out’ of their contexts” is necessary throughout the research process (Fairhead and Leach, 1996, p. 16).

Conclusion

27In summary, the conceptualization of socioecological relations has been variously viewed by Anglophone political ecologists. The thematic and theoretical focus of the main approaches have evolved from an initial emphasis on the destructive impacts of these relations on the environment and society from political economic framings to more constructivist and co-productionist perspectives that build upon discursive and network approaches to socioecological relations (Robbins, 2012; Castree, 2014). Moreover, these main approaches have differentially engaged with contemporary debates in ecological sciences. Common threads running through these political ecological perspectives are dialectical approaches, an emphasis on power relations, the notion that ecology is a social relation, and an emphasis on the nonequilibrium character of socioecological systems.

28The dialectical perspective is most evident in the coproduction framework in which socioecological assemblages are constituted by human and nonhuman interrelationships. But it is also central to the environmental/social dialectic in which smallholders ensnared in commodity relations mine soils to make ends meet. This socioecological process simultaneously impoverishes soils and producers who experience declining yields. Similarly, the dialectical view informs environmental constructivist approaches in which environmental narratives shape resource management policies which, in turn, produce unintended landscapes. The landscape becomes something else through its entanglement with environmental narratives.

29Power relations at multiple scales figure importantly in all three socioecological perspectives discussed here. In the environmental/social dialectic, land degradation is most often associated with the precarious status of smallholders. Their (in)ability to negotiate higher prices for cash crops or secure greater access to productive resources is linked in part to their political power. Differential power relations also explain the dominance of certain environmental narratives and the inability of counternarratives to gain ground. The co-production framework is more cautious about the location of power (Robbins, 2012, p. 241). It remains a question rather than a presumption given the importance of the dialectical relationships shaping socioecological relations.

30Each of the socioecological frameworks presented are based on the notion that ecology is a social relation. The words “socioecological” and “socionature” suggest that the status of the ecological is inextricably linked to the status of the social. Ecology is a social relation in the environmental/social dialectic perspective because of the dialectical nature of cause and effect relationships. Landscapes are “contained and are constituted by their relations to other things…they are always becoming something else, precisely through their relating” (Robbins, 2012). In the environmental constructivist approach, explanations of ecological change and what counts as “natural” are rooted in the social relations of production of discourses and expertise (Robbins, 2012). Ecology is a social relation for the co-production approach in two ways. First, scientific knowledge is “made possible by a certain discipline of ‘ordering appearances’ known as science…[which reproduces conventional] practices of creating and mobilizing specific ecological data” (Robertson, 2004, p. 365). Second, for those who borrow from ANT, the social world is the outcome of networks of relations forged between human and nonhuman actors. Ecology is constituted of and by a web of relations between humans and nonhumans that, in total, create the social world (Latour, 2005).

31Nonequilibrium ecology informs each of the socioecological frameworks presented in this paper. Contrary to equilibrium notions that ecological systems trend toward a steady state, nonequilibrium ecology demonstrates that land degradation associated with environmental/social dialectics depends strongly on the scale of degradation analysis (Turner, 1993; Zimmerer, 2000). Nonequilibrium ecology is key to the environmental constructivist critiques of dominant environmental narratives that hinge on simple cause and effect relationships. Counternarratives emphasize the complexity and uncertainty of ecological systems and thus challenge the command and control prescriptions of environmental policies and managers. Nonequilibrium ecology is theoretically analogous to co-production theories that draw from ANT. To ANT co-production, any ecological state is merely a temporary stabilization of human-nonhuman assemblages. ANT co-production emphasizes that socioecological relations are in flux and constantly “becoming” (Latour, 2005; Pickering, 2010).

32Together, these similarities and differences in the conceptualization of socioecological relations illustrate the vitality of political ecology and the diversity of social and ecological theories that characterize this transdisciplinary approach to nature, science, and society.