Degradation and Marginalization: Robbins and Bacon

Until this week's readings, we had not really gotten a discussion in depth of the four theses that Robbins sets aside in his book. This week, along with an article on the Nicaraguan Coffee Crisis, we investigated Degradation and Marginalization.

The thesis is basically this: because of state intervention and development of land in various different cases, systems of land and farming undergo radical changes that usually result in an exploitation of resources. Communities become marginalized as the same forces challenge the existing structures of governance and operation in each community.

The two standout case studies in Robbins were deforestation in the Amazon and banana farming in the Caribbean. What is important to note is that while degradation and marginalization can be applied to the causes of extreme deforestation in the the Amazonian forest (with some critiques of course) the same results that might foster a label of degradation and marginalization had little or nothing to do with the shortage of food produced in Grossman's Carribean. In that second case, cash crops did not have an effect on the community in the same way.

I like that Robbins is always pointing out how much prospective matters in each piece of his book. It is really important to understand that we take so many ecological concepts for granted and that nature is so often misinterpreted because of the way it is marketed as a commodity. Degradation and Marginalization sound a lot worse than they can be, and both the Caribbean study and the nature of understanding the UNESCO forest from chapter 5 are dependent on the perspective one uses.

Acess to Resources and Landscape Change

Land degradation and development policies and studies have clearly been needing an overhaul. In this introduction to a journal volume published in 1999, Batterbury and Bebbington take the time to outline how each of the papers included in the preceding volume ground themselves in multifaceted approaches with multiple levels of analysis.

Off the bat, one of the clearest issues is access to resource and how that is affected by different social structures, including local, statewide, federal, and global governance. All of these levels are intertwined and this is demonstrated in the variance of options that Batterbuy and Bebbington offer to make the papers more relevant (local political ecology vs. partnership research).

Something that occurs to me as insurmountable is how intertwined each level of analysis is to its neighbors. This is where emphasis of level really comes into play in clarifying the point or goal of research. However, where one emphasis takes precedence in a paper, report, or research, I am confused as to how one could possibly feel satisfied with results without feeling as though other levels of analysis where shortchanged. This is not to discount this type of research.

Land degradation is a serious problem to be sure, but the best way to communicate the environmental concerns associated with it is even harder. What levels of analysis are most effective? Must each report be catered to a certain group to give its full potential of understanding? How far back must historical relevance and research go to provide a satisfiable picture?

Political Ecology, Critical Tools

The more I begin to understand the implications behind Political Ecology, the more fascinating a field it becomes. This week's reading challenged my understanding of the capitalist and communist theories of economy in relation to the environment. While initially it seemed like capitalism was going to be the clear bad guy, Robbins drew out his section on Green Materialism to point out that only some key parts of Marxism and his contemporaries contributed to Political Ecology.

I think that this is an incredibly complicated, but important, distinction. First of all, Robbins takes quite a risk in equating Political Ecology to Marxism when he's writing to help us understand political ecology, at least here in the United States where capitalism holds sway. Even though we may think our politics can adjust, or that we can become progressive, events like the current economic failures and the most recent crisis have shown that the solutions we have in this country are to support the system we have been building and thriving on...there is no drastic socioeconomic change in sight.

Thus it is a concern of mine that in communicating important values of Political Ecology, even if Robbins' intent is to show how materialism only influenced it, even the mention of communist theory is polarizing. I know that my initial reaction was one of skepticism, not even because I do not respect the theory behind Marxism, but because I am just conditioned to throw up a red flag in that situation.

Still, with careful reading, it is clear the the economic influences of PE are not entirely materialist, and in fact Robins lays out the argument very carefully.