The affective labor of growing forests and the becoming of environmental subjects: Rethinking environmentality in Odisha, India
Highlights
► Extends “governmentality” through the ideas of affect and affective labor. ► Shows how forest conservationists in Odisha “become” environmental subjects. ► Illustrates environmental care practices as biopower from below.
Introduction
In view of current global environmental crises, the question of whether we can fundamentally change our ways of relating with nature is becoming increasingly urgent. These ecological crises and the arrival of the “Anthropocene” are challenging us to invent a “different mode of humanity” (Plumwood, 2002) and new ways of “caring for nature” (Milton, 2002) and of “belonging”(Gibson-Graham, 2011) in a “post-natural” world (Castree, 2004, Escobar, 1999). There is now a growing body of scholarship by human geographers and anthropologists – under the labels of posthumanism, vital materiality, and performance ontology – that provides tools to reimagine a new ontology of human beings and to rethink human subjectivity, modes of being, and drivers of human action (for a detailed review see Braun, 2004, Braun, 2008). However, academic theorizing and policymaking for environmental conservation have yet to fully embrace the radical potential of this work. At the same time, there is evidence coming from other disciplines, including evolutionary biology (Alexander, 1987, De Waal, 2008, De Waal, 2010), neuroscience (Decety and Jackson, 2006, Maturana and Varela, 1987, Preston and De Waal, 2002) and behavioral economics (Bowles and Gintis, 2011, Falk and Fishbacher, 2005, Levine, 1998), that shows that reciprocity, empathy, and affect play central roles in shaping human behavior and actions. However, environmental policy-making continues to treat human beings as rational economic actors and relies on economic incentives to transform human behavior. According to this view, subject positions and preferences are seen as fixed and pre-given and shaped by the perception of self-interest; meanwhile, the “self” that drives self-interest is largely left unquestioned. While the question of subject formation has long engaged the attention of philosophers, it has only recently begun to engage those in nature-society studies. Notably, Arun Agrawal’s work (Agrawal, 2005a, Agrawal, 2005b) has been influential in drawing attention to issues of subjectivity and subject formation within environmental politics. Drawing on Foucault’s notion of governmentality, Agrawal (2005a, p. 166) uses the term “environmentality” to denote a “framework of understanding in which technologies of self and power are involved in the creation of new subjects concerned about the environment.” Despite the richness in Foucault’s later work on how human beings make themselves, Agrawal’s analysis remains closely tied to rationalities of governance and the role of disciplinary practices in the production of subjectivity.
This paper brings Agrawal’s notion of environmentality (and similar applications of governmentality) into conversation with ideas about subjectivity that are informed by a Spinozian perspective on affect and Hardt and Negri’s concept of affective labor. Affects refer to the power to affect and be affected; and a focus on affects in our laboring (and everyday practices) draws attention to the potential of these practices to produce new ways of being, new subjectivities, and new forms of human communication and cooperation.
Using ethnographic research from community-based forest conservation initiatives in Odisha,1 India, I illustrate the role of affect and environmental care practices in the production of new subjectivities. In Odisha, about 10,000 villages are actively protecting state-owned forests through elaborate community-based arrangements (Nayak and Berkes, 2008, Singh, 2002). They had been doing so prior to the state’s provision of “incentives” to conserve forests or the invitation to “jointly” manage forests through the Joint Forest Management (JFM) program (Kant et al., 1991, Sarin et al., 2003). This paper shows that villagers’ daily practices of caring for and regenerating degraded forests in Odisha can be seen as affective labor in which mind and body, reason and passion, intellect and feeling are employed together. Through the environmental care practices involved in “growing forests,” villagers not only transform natural landscapes they also transform their individual and collective subjectivities.
This paper is based on my long-term engagement as an activist and researcher with these community-forestry initiatives. In 1990, my first job with a Swedish consulting firm managing the Social Forestry Project took me to Odisha, where I found that villagers were actually protecting the state-owned forests that the Project sought to “protect” from them. After my initial, naïve efforts to make visible local forest-conservation efforts, I spent about a decade with Vasundhara, a Bhubaneswar-based NGO, supporting the community-forestry initiatives in their struggle to gain rights over forests, before coming to academia. This paper uses data from ethnographic research conducted from 2004 to 2007 in the form of village case-studies, oral histories, village songs, and poems and also draws upon insights from my practitioner work. During this long-term engagement with communities in Odisha, the question that I had initially set aside with easy answers has come back to engage my attention – that is, Why have villagers invested their labor (and love) in protecting forests over which they have few formal rights? Economic reasons and subsistence dependence on forests provide a partial answer, but they do not explain how subjectivity is produced through processes of “becoming” at work and through the dynamic relations between people and forests. Reading Agrawal’s Environmentality against my experience of shifts in environmental subjectivities in Odisha left me frustrated – as the analytics of environmentality did not seem to provide enough space for local agency (dispersed over forests and people) and for the processes of “becoming.” I turned to Spinozian philosophy and to the biopolitical potential of affective labor to open up ways of theorizing local agency and emergence that are creative and life affirming.
I state my positionality in order to emphasize that I did not read local conservation practices through the lens of the “in-vogue” theories of posthumanism, liveliness of matter, and affect; rather, I turned to these theories in my restless quest to better understand and explain how people’s sense of self and subjectivity are intertwined with their biophysical environment and with the forms of human cooperation that emerge in response to changes in this environment. Spinoza’s philosophy, as taken up in the works of Deleuze, Massumi, and Hardt and Negri, provided the tools to better understand the “becoming” of people who care for their environment. In stark contrast to the application of Foucauldian “governmentality” to the making of environmental subjects in Agrawal’s framework of “environmentality,” Spinozian optics of affect help us understand how people’s sense of self is shaped by their affective capacity to respond to other bodies, both human and non-human.
The article begins with a discussion about the analytical framework of environmentality and its limitations, then explores Spinoza’s perspective on affects and Hardt and Negri’s employment of Spinozian affect theory, in their notion of affective labor and biopower from below. Next, it describes villagers’ efforts in Odisha to protect local forests; illustrates the everyday practices and affective dimensions involved in the laboring practices of caring for forests; and discusses how their affective labor transforms local subjectivities. It concludes with a discussion of the biopolitical potential of such environmental care practices to produce new subjectivities and to challenge state and capitalist projects to discipline and commodify life.
Section snippets
Beyond environmentality: Affects, affective labor and intimate environmental practices
Through his study of forest councils in Kumaon, India, Agrawal, 2005a, Agrawal, 2005b traces the transformation in rural residents’ attitudes toward forests, from apathy in the 1920s to active support for conservation in the 1990s, and he attributes this change to their involvement in the government (in a Foucauldian sense of guiding the conduct of others’ conduct) of the environment. Agrawal’s work opens up new ways of understanding environmental subjectivity “beyond the limited perspective of
Community initiatives to conserve forests: Local responses to changes in the landscape
I first encountered community efforts to protect forests in 1990 when, as a newly recruited employee of a Swedish consulting firm working with the Social Forestry Project, I accompanied an “Annual Appraisal Mission” (a team of mostly white men) to assess the progress of a project focused on plantations on village common lands. As our team was “inspecting” the plantation of eucalyptus and acacia trees, I got interested in the luxuriant patch of Sal (Shorea robusta) forest nearby. On inquiring
Intimate environmental care practices and the affective labor of “growing” forests
Villagers commonly say, “Aame jungle jagunchu [we are looking after the forest]” or, “Aame jungle badhaunchu [we are growing the forest],” to refer to their actions to protect forests. The expression “jungle jagunchu” in some ways invokes bringing the forest into their realm of consciousness or rendering it alive through care and attention.
“Caring for the forest” involved active patrolling measures, especially in the initial years, usually undertaken through a community-based system of labor
“Jungle Surakhyakaris” of Odisha: New individual and collective subjectivities and biopower from below
Abe to gote nasha hai jaichhi; mado-pado khaile bhi aame jungle chadibu nahin.
Now, this (forest protection) has become a passion, an addiction. Even on getting beaten-up or crushed, we won’t leave the forest (forest protection).10
The subjectivity that jungle
Conclusion: Local environmental care practices and biopower from below
On the one hand, life, defined broadly as what runs through individual bodies, collective populations and more-than-human worlds, exceeds attempts to order and control it; on the other hand, life is made productive through techniques of intervention (Anderson, 2012). I have argued that governmentality studies have privileged the latter and have advocated for engagement with the ways in which the surpluses of life escape attempts to discipline it. I have shown that we need to look beyond
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the ‘forest conservationists’, friends and colleagues in Odisha for conversations and insights about ‘environmental care’ and social transformation; and to Padraig Carmody, Nathan Clough, James Igoe, Kundan Kumar, Kathy McAfee, Dianne Rocheleau, Kathryn White, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version. Fieldwork for this research was supported by dissertation fieldwork grants by the Social Science Research Council and the American Institute of
References (81)
Querying posthumanisms
Geoforum
(2004)- et al.
Territorialisation and marginalisation in the forested landscapes of Orissa, India
Land Use Policy
(2013) Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments
Review of Economic Dynamics
(1998)Environmentality reconsidered: indigenous to lindu conservation strategies and the reclaiming of the commons in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia
Environmentality: community, intimate government, and the making of environmental subjects in Kumaon, India
Current Anthropology
(2005)Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects
(2005)The Biology of Moral Systems
(1987)Affect and biopower: towards a politics of life
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
(2012)The giving environment: another perspective on the economic system of gatherer-hunters
Current Anthropology
(1990)Beyond ‘The Hunting and Gathering Mode of Subsistence’: culture-sensitive observations on the Nayaka and other modern hunter-gatherers
Man
(1992)
Beyond “The Original Affluent Society”: a culturalist reformulation
Current Anthropology
A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and its Evolution
Environmental issues: inventive life
Progress in Human Geography
Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity
The multitude and the kangaroo: a critique of Hardt and Negri’s theory of immaterial labour
Historical Materialism
It’s a powerful life: a conversation on contemporary philosophy
Cultural Critique
Nature is dead! Long live nature!
Environment and Planning A
Foucault in the forest: questioning environmentality in Amazonia
American Ethnologist
The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social
Biopolitics, biopower, and the return of sovereignty
Environment and Planning: D, Society and Space
Conflicts affecting participatory forest management: their nature and implications
Poverty, disparities, or the development of underdevelopment in Orissa
Economic and Political Weekly
The Age of Empathy: Nature’s Lessons for a Kinder Society
Putting the altruism back into altruism: the evolution of empathy
Annual Review of Psychology
A social-neuroscience perspective on empathy
Current Directions in Psychological Science
Spinoza, Practical Philosophy
After nature
Current Anthropology
Modelling strong reciprocity
About the beginning of the hermeneutics of the self: two lectures at Dartmouth
Political Theory
Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault
Ecological conflicts and the environmental movement in India
Development and Change
Ecology and Equity: The Use and Abuse of Nature in Contemporary India
The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception
A feminist project of belonging for the Anthropocene
Gender, Place & Culture
India National Census 2011
Comment on environmentality
Current Anthropology
Forests of Pleasure and Pain: Gendered practices of labor and livelihood in the forests of the Kumaon Himalayas, India
Gender, Place & Culture
Affective labor
Boundary
Foreword: what affects are good for
Cited by (175)
The environmentality of digital acoustic monitoring: Emerging formations of spatial power in forests
2024, Political GeographyAlways and forever: Materializing an environmental public in Bristol Bay, Alaska
2024, Extractive Industries and Society