Development Eco-Logies: Power and Change in Arturo Escobar's Political Ecology

READE DAVIS
ntroduction Arturo Escobar is best known for his exploration of the discursive underpinnings of international development planning. He has argued that most development schemes, while purporting to be in the best interests of "underdeveloped" countries, have actually served to uphold the economic interests of Western elites. In recent years, Escobar has expanded upon this framework to argue that even recent concerns with the conservation of biodiversity and with more environmentally sensitive "sustainable development" approaches must be seen as arising from a desire to preserve the international capitalist order and ensure continuing economic growth. In spite of these concerns, Escobar is hopeful that these new trends will be appropriated by grassroots social movements and used to subvert dominant meanings. This essay summarizes a number of the key themes that have emerged in Escobar's writings over the course of the last decade.! It then reviews several materialist, political, and antiessentialist critiques that have been launched against his work and discusses Escobar's responses to these challenges. Finally, it introduces the concept of "strategic universalism" as a possible way of reconciling materialist and antiessentialist positions.

The Discourse of Development: Capitalist Expansion and the Erasure of Difference Escobar characterizes himself as a poststructuralist.s Accordingly, he views language as playing a
Studies in Political Economy 70, Spring 2003

153

Studies in Political Economy

central role in determining what is and is not considered to be reality. This marks a departure from materialist analyses, which tend to view language as a reflection of a material reality that is essentially the same for all people. Although Escobar does not deny the existence of a pre-discursive material reality, he asserts that all efforts to define "reality" or "the truth" must be understood as discourses, produced within specific social, cultural and historical contexts, and shaped by relations of power. From this point of view, the question of who has the power to define "the truth" for others becomes central. Escobar contends that the history of capitalist expansion is inseparable from "the history of the advance of scientific discourses of modernity ... "3 He is particularly interested in drawing attention to the ways in which the position of epistemological privilege that has long been accorded to Western science has helped to justify the establishment of global systems of economic and political domination. By making explicit the ways in which relations of power and knowledge have shaped the production of "scientific truth," Escobar hopes to create opportunities for alternative understandings to be brought to the Iore.s This theoretical orientation helps to explain the focus of Escobar's celebrated book Encountering Development: the Making and Unmaking of the Third World In it, he employs a genealogical approach in exploring the discourse that has accompanied the rise of international development initiatives during the latter half of the twentieth century. Escobar locates the origins of international development discourse in the modernist thinking that assumed prominence during the Enlightenment, but suggests that many of the techniques that came to be associated with development planning did not fully emerge until the Second World War, in connection with the refinement of such fields as operations research, systems analysis and human engineering. The search for new markets and raw materials that followed the war prompted many industrialized countries to begin looking for ways of extending their economic influence to nonindustrial parts of the world. Development programs were conceived of, first and foremost, as techniques for eradicating local traditions and subsistence strategies and replacing them with "rational new 154

DavislEco- Logics

ones," characterized by scientific resource management and linkages to world markets.e Escobar contends that international development needs to be viewed as "a historically singular experience," in that the same basic mechanism has been applied to vastly different groups of people," Under the "developmental gaze" of Western planners, differences between nonmodern peoples were effectively ignored. Instead, countries were evaluated using standardized measures of such things as diet, health, hygiene, and employment levels. Data derived from these studies were used to create a set of "Westernized" truths, which, in turn, were used to justify outside interventions. Escobar explains:
In the development literature, there exists a veritable underdeveloped subjectivity endowed with features such as powerlessness, passivity, poverty, and ignorance, usually dark and lacking in historical agency, as if waiting for the (white) Western hand to help subjects along and not infrequently hungry, illiterate, needy, and oppressed by its own stubbornness, lack of initiative, and traditionsf

Local understandings of the meanings behind traditions and practices were granted little merit by Western planners. Debates in the "First World" focused on the type of development that was needed, but the question of whether or not development was necessary or desirable was never on the table. Analysts on both the Left and the Right accepted that the "Third World" was an object that had to be "molded through planning to meet the scientifically ascertained characteristics of a development society."9 Planners took it for granted that all "underdeveloped" societies could achieve progress, and even prosperity, if they were modeled upon "developed" ones. This meant taking steps towards lowering fertility rates and increasing levels of industrialization, urbanization and formal education. 10 These changes were facilitated through largescale money lending programs, which provided opportunities to influence the policies of distant governments.t! Escobar's more recent writings have examined differences in the ways that modern and nonmodern peoples have tended to understand "nature." He contends that people living in

155

Studies in Political Economy

most non-modern contexts do not observe a strong separation between human beings and the natural world.is While nonmodern peoples may very well distinguish between humans and other organisms, few, if any, have a tradition of viewing these organisms as comprising a distinct realm of which humans are not a part. In later writings, he refers to these non-modern ways of understanding the natural world as "organic nature regimes." He suggests that in organic nature regimes, knowledge about the world is derived through practical engagement in it. Consequently, understandings of biophysical "reality" are inherently local, contextual, and changing.r' According to Escobar, visions of nature have changed dramatically with the rise of modernist epistemologies and the spread of industrial capitalism. Central to modernity is the idea that nature exists as a discrete realm, outside of culture and history. In this regime, which Escobar calls "capitalist nature," biophysical regions, just like Third World peoples who inhabit them, come to be thought of as generic forms.iThey can be made the objects of expert knowledge and manipulated accordingly. From the perspective of the capitalist nature regime, the biophysical world has fixed, universal laws that can be understood objectively by Western scientists. Escobar sees this symbolic colonization of nature as being closely linked with the development of maps and statistics, the spread of the written word, the standardization of time, and the development of codified environmental management
schemes.t> In Escobar's view, the totalizing vision of "capitalist nature"

poses a threat to the persistence of organic nature regimes, as well as to the life ways that sustain them. He writes: Modem science necessarily constructs ("enframes") nature as something to be appropriated, something whose energy must be released for human purposes. This is "the danger in the utmost sense" to the extent that enframing leads to destructive activities and, particularly, to the destruction of other, more fundamental ways of revealing the essence of being.. )6 The one hope for the persistence of alternative regimes, he tells us, may lie in the fact that the environmental degradation 156

DavislEco- Logics

brought about by sustained resource exploitation is also beginning to create obstacles to the continuation of capitalist expansion.i?

New Frontiers: Sustainable Development and Biodiversity

Escobar explains that, in recent decades, capitalism has entered a period of crisis. In a variety of sectors, environmental limits to growth are beginning to threaten the replication of the system as a whole. The growing scarcity of raw materials, in combination with increasing pressure from social movements to reduce damage to the biophysical world, is resulting in considerable interest in moving toward "sustainable development" practices.l'' In a 1996 article, Escobar argues that the sustainable development discourse diverges from the conventional development discourse in a number of ways.i? First, it is founded upon what he calls "the problematization of global survival."2o The Earth is presented as extremely fragile, and all humans are called upon to do their parts to protect it. The responsibility of prescribing what must be done in order to protect the Earth, however, remains the prerogative of First World professionals. Alternative visions are systematically excluded.u Second, the sustainable development discourse tends to focus on "the degrading activities of the poor," such as slash and burn agriculture.v It all but ignores the role played by development policies, such as the displacement of peoples and the intensification of waste creation in bringing about new environmental pressures. Third, it presents ecological degradation as an obstacle to continuing economic growth, rather than raising questions about the role of continuing economic growth in bringing about environmental degradation. The sustainable development discourse posits that development and conservation are not antagonistic. To the contrary, they are presented as complementary. Thus, while proponents of this discourse acknowledge that some changes to capitalism do need to be made, the overall merits of the system are rarely, if ever, questioned. Finally, the sustainable development discourse relies on a newly constructed concept: "the environment." This dif-

157

Studies in Political Economy

fers substantially from the concept of "nature," which has historically been used to denote "an entity with its own agency" that has the power to influence society.v' The environment concept, by contrast, includes only those elements of the physical world that are "relevant to the functioning of the (urban-industrial) system."24 When "nature" is constructed as "environment," Escobar argues, it is stripped of its agency and comes to be thought of as passive and controllable. It ceases to have any intrinsic value. Seen through this lens, the promotion of environmental conservation becomes synonymous with the promotion of rational resource management. In parallel with the rise of the sustainable development discourse has been an emergent concern on the part of some development enterprises with the conservation of biodiversity. Escobar asserts that this new concept must be understood not as a real scientific object, but as a historically produced discourse.s> While he concedes that the idea of biodiversity does appear to correspond with certain observable biophysical phenomena, he argues that the sudden global preoccupation with biodiversity conservation is being driven by political and economic concerns. The perceived need to protect biodiversity stems from the search for new genetic material that has accompanied the emergence of biotechnology as a new field of capitalist growth.26 Biotechnology has brought about a concern with protecting biologically rich localities, since they are now seen as potential generators of capital. Escobar links this trend with the growing interest on the part of governments, development agencies, and corporations with implementing local conservation and stewardship programs and with collecting local ecological knowledge.z7 He cautions that while these trends may appear to signal the elevation of once marginalized peoples into positions of power, they also must be seen as an "increasing appropriation of 'traditional' or premodern cultural content by scientific know ledges, and the subsequent subjection of vast areas of life to regulation by administrative apparatuses based on expert knowledge."28

158

DavislEco- Logics

Deconstructing Nature: Technonature, Hybridity and the Promise of Social Movements Escobar claims that the rise of biotechnology, along with other recent technological developments such as the emergence of real-time computer technologies, is bringing about a new type of nature regime, which he calls "technonature."29 In the technonature regime, nature ceases to be seen as having a fixed essence, and comes to be viewed increasingly as something that can be shaped and reshaped through technology or social engineering. Concepts that were once thought to be static and unchanging, like "genetic code," "human nature," and "identity," begin to appear flexible and indeterminate. This is helping to bring about a "new era of pure antiessentialism."3o Whereas through the modernist lens of capitalist nature, people and places are seen as general types, technonature has ushered in a renewed emphasis on specific forms. In this sense, it shares some common ground with organic nature regimes. Although Escobar acknowledges that the shift toward technonature may further the interests of capital, he remains optimistic that it may also provide subaltern peoples with new opportunities to move beyond conventional development regimes and take greater control over their lives)! He argues that by selectively drawing upon these new trends, social movements may be able to assert the importance of their local knowledge, and of their specific,place-based ways of being in the world. In Escobar's view,"the defense of the local is a prerequisite to engaging with the global."32He sees local perspectives as emerging "centers of innovation," which may help to bring about "alternative worlds."33 Accordingly, he advocates a move away from the conventional traditional-modern dichotomy, and an embracing of the notion of "hybridity."34 Hybridization, he writes, is "a way of crossing the boundary between the traditional and the modern and of using both local and transnational cultural resources to create unique collective identities."35He is hopeful that by creating collectivized cultural hybrids, marginalized peoples will be able to break down modern categories, and redefine themselves, and their surrounding environments in novel ways.v' He writes: 159

Studies in Political Economy

Culture is political, because meanings are constitutive of processes that, implicitly or explicitly,seek to redefine social power. When movements deploy alternative conceptions of woman, nature, development, economy, democracy, or citizenship that unsettle dominant cultural meanings, they enact a cultural politics. Cultural politics are the result of discursive articulations originating in existing cultural practices. These processes are never pure and always hybrid yet showing significant contrasts and relation to dominant cultures.t?

For Escobar, political, economic and cultural struggles are inextricably Iinked.se He points out that, instead of being assimilated or destroyed by capitalist encroachment, many "traditional cultures" are demonstrating a capacity to "survive through their transformative engagement with modernity."39By asserting the inseparability of their "cultures" from the land upon which they depend, some groups have been successful in moving beyond conventional development frameworks. In support of this claim, Escobar draws upon his fieldwork experience with black settler communities living in rainforest areas along Colombia's Pacific coast. He shows how these groups have taken advantage of the rich biodiversity of the region to defend their ways of life. By presenting themselves as stewards of a fragile ecosystem, rainforest dwellers have been successful in asserting that protection of their cultural identity, political autonomy, and rights to territory are essential prerequisites to any efforts to preserve the biodiversity of the region.w They have also made effective use of new communications technologies to build alliances with other movements that espouse similar goals. Anthropologists, he argues, are uniquely positioned to assist such movements by working to "bring social theory into line with the views of the world and political strategies of those who exist on the side of place, non-capitalism and local knowledge .... "41 Critiques aud Respouses Escobar's ambitious project has drawn considerable criticism. For the most part, critiques of his work can be subdivided into three broad groups: materialist critiques, political critiques, and antiessentialist critiques. This section reviews the main arguments that have been 160

-----------------------------------

DavislEco- Logics

launched from each of these perspectives, and highlights some of Escobar's efforts to formulate responses to these varied critiques. Materialist Critiques Materialist critiques have tended to focus on Escobar's tendency to reduce the concepts of "material reality" and "nature" to discursive constructions. Milton stresses that attempts to theorize nature in antiessentialist ways are doomed to fail, because they systematically disregard the testable findings of the biological sciences.s- She calls on Escobar to accept that many forms of knowledge are not generated through discourse, but through direct interactions with the material world. Stonich has also accused Escobar of underestimating the capacity of nature to shape human thought and action.o As an alternative, she argues that analysts should seek to retain a concept of nature as "an active agent."44By focusing solely on the social construction of nature, Stonich suggests, Escobar is guilty of downplaying the ways in which the natural world continues to construct the social. Some have challenged Escobar's tendency to characterize all scientific truth claims as political discourses. Anderson cautions Escobar to remember that "the reality that refuses to go away is the world environmental crisis," and this has universal implications.s> Similarly, Lehmann has challenged Escobar's implication that the exclusion of professional expertise from the formulation of environmental policy would produce an improved state of affairs. He accuses Escobar of hiding behind a "cycle of uncontrollable reflexifity," as a way of avoiding the need to support many of his assertions with empirical facts.46He writes "We're told that evidence would not settle the issue: data are usually biased, cases are partial, and the research which produces the evidence is itself driven ideologically and by a ready-made agenda .... "47This, in turn, is used by Escobar to justify "an argument against even attempting a balanced evaluation of what has been written."48 In response, Escobar has taken issue with the notion of "objective reality" that underlies these critiques. He argues that the assertion that poststructuralist discourse analysis fails to address the underlying material reality that shapes

161

-----~-

---

Studies in Political Economy

discourses "arises out of an unwillingness to accept the poststructuralist insights about the importance of language and meaning in the creation of reality."49 Materialism, he argues is "a valid epistemological choice," but cautions that it has "political consequences."50 Namely, it makes it difficult, if not impossible, to make explicit the ways in which capitalism and modernity have been embedded in each other's production and reproduction. Instead, Escobar chooses to embrace a different set of axioms. In his view, "there can be no materialist analysis which is not, at the same time, a discursive analysis," because visions about what is real and what is not are always shaped by language and power.u
Political Critiques Although political critiques of Escobar's work have been rooted in materialist paradigms, they tend to be less concerned with the truth-obscuring qualities of poststructuralist analysis. At the core of these approaches is the notion that the political must take precedence over the analytical in social research. Concerns about the political and moral consequences of poststructuralist theory are, of course, not new. Critics have long argued that poststructuralism will inevitably give way to a morally hollow relativism. This perspective is epitomized by Little and Painter who criticize Escobar for suggesting that simply analyzing the discourse of development constitutes a display of solidarity with subaltern peoples. They challenge his decision to focus solely on the study of discourse, avoiding the concrete and observable ways in which "social processes have materially benefited the few at the expense of the many."52 Furthermore, they argue that by reducing everything to language, Escobar avoids talking about the social consequences of real historical processes. In this sense, they claim that Escobar's analysis is as depoliticized as the development discourse he criticizes. His concern with discourse rather than practice, they suggest, arises from "a northern intellectual agenda that has little to do with grassroots movements in the Third World."53 Escobar does seem concerned about the political consequences of embracing a poststructuralist approach. In a 1998 article, Escobar and Soren Hvalkof acknowledge that, although poststructuralist analysis provides a powerful weapon for unsettling entrenched regimes of truth, it can ere-

162

DavislEco-Logics

ate a moral paradox because "responsibility can only be gauged in terms of the relative truth of each specific discourse."54They concede that, if it is not reconstructed politically, poststructuralist thought has the potential to "leave us with a fragmented and particularistic universe, creating a serious political vacuum."55 In a later essay, however, Escobar launched a spirited defense of the political underpinnings of his poststructuralist theory. Defying the accusation that poststructuralism inevitably leads to moral relativism, he has argued that, in fact, it provides "very clear criteria for making judgment and taking action based on the analysis of discourse and power and the overall aim of transforming entrenched political economies of truth. That these criteria can never be universal and valid once and for all does not disable action."56He has called for the forging of new theories of practice that can account for a plurality of truths without abandoning political and ethical foundations. Antiessentialist Critiques Perhaps the most salient critiques of Escobar's writings have come from fellow antiessentialists and poststructuralists. Some of the concerns that have been raised by these critics include Escobar's propensity for grand theory, his marginalizing of individual actors, events, and places in his ethnographic writing, his increasing use of ideal types, and his habit of engaging with broader historical and ethnographic literatures only when they complement his thesis. For the most part, these writers have accepted Escobar's assertion that "material reality" is a contested and deeply problematic notion. Many share his concern with uncovering the essentialist notions that persist in modern conceptions of nature and society.Their primary goal, therefore, has been to expose the latent essentialisms that continue to exist in his thinking. Antiessentialist critiques of Escobar's work have centred around three main issues: his oversimplification of the capitalism-modernity-development nexus, his tendency to treat the people who make up Third World cultures and social movements as an undifferentiated whole, and his generalized view of the power of social movements to bring about lasting change. 163

Studies in Political Economy

Capitalism, Modernity, and Development A common criticism of Escobar's development model is that he overemphasized the uniformity of the development enterprise, treating it as a "cut and pasted totality."57Some have commented that his generalizing writing style paints scientists, NGOs, bureaucrats, development anthropologists and economists with a single brushstroke. In so doing, he homogenizes these professionals in much the same way that he accuses them of homogenizing "Third World cultures." Lehmann accuses Escobar of launching virulent attacks against his research subjects (development workers) without offering them the dignity of a "respectful anthropological hearing."58 He claims that top-down policy solutions are not always as problematic as Escobar makes them out to be. Escobar's sweeping generalizations, Lehmann argues, cannot account for those policy initiatives that have helped to bring greater autonomy to marginalized peoples. Some have called upon Escobar to pay greater attention to the ways in which individual actors are engaged in development processes at the local level. Autumn finds Escobar's relative exclusion of local elites from his analysis of development particularly problematic. In focusing on the relationship between development agencies and non-modern peoples, she argues, Escobar largely overlooks the role played by national governments and local capitalist interests in shaping the ways that development processes operate in specific localities. Autumn asserts that Escobar's global-local dichotomy overlooks the place-based politics that help to shape capitalist development.59 Moore argues that Escobar's surface reading of policy documents and his insufficient examination of the ways that development operates in grounded contexts lead him to downplay the extent to which international development initiatives have been contested at the local leve1.60 a result, As he fails to explore the ways in which local differences (political, economic, cultural) have helped to shape the ways in which development has been received,contested, and reshaped. Moore calls upon Escobar to pay greater "ethnographic attention to the micro-politics of development."61 Similarly, Berger suggests that Escobar's "minimalist approach to the changing contours of the international polit164

DavislEco- Logics

ical economy gives the dominant discourse of development an overly homogenous and autonomous quality."62He calls for a more pluralistic view,which would pay greater attention to variations between national and regional discourses of development. A number of authors have also questioned Escobar's description of development as a postWar phenomenon. Hill suggests that, in blaming the entire plight of all Third World countries on a discourse that is barely fifty years old, Escobar downplays or ignores a variety of other factors, including the history of colonialism in certain regions.63Alternative views, such as that of Cowan and Shenton, have suggested that many elements of international development discourse predated the Second World War. In their view,the roots of development thinking were apparent in some parts of Latin America as early as the nineteenth century.eDifferentiation Within Groups The second area upon which antiessentialist critiques have focused is Escobar's failure to talk about the operation of power within the movements that he studies. He has been accused of treating the people engaged in social movements along the Colombian coast as if they are a homogeneous group.e>Autumn has suggested that Escobar's analysis suffers considerably because he fails to look at the ways in which specific people within these movements stand to be empowered, or devastated, by particular development or conservation policies. She suggests that Escobar should have devoted more time to looking at the ways in which some movements "motivated by racism or sexism, have disavowed the right of others to political voice."66 Cleveland finds problems with Escobar's essentializing of "organic nature" regimes as distinct from the "capitalist" or scientific nature regime. In actuality, he argues, nonindustrial conceptions of nature do allow for abstraction, just as scientific and modern conceptions allow for knowledge to be overturned through practical engagements with the world.o? Presenting these regimes as ideal types, it could be argued, only lends support to othering discourses about "Third World" cultural traditions. It might also be suggested that Escobar essentializes notions of local knowledge and stewardship. In some situa165

Studies in Political Economy

tions, the marketing of local knowledge and/or resources to outsiders can create tremendous political and economic opportunities for certain people, even as it creates problems for others. In uniformly characterizing local knowledge harvesting as intellectual piracy, Escobar ignores these internal dynamics. The Power of Social Movements to Bring About Change A third area on which Escobar has been taken to task is his rather optimistic assessment of the power of grassroots social movements to bring about an improved state of affairs for subaltern groups. Autumn cautions Escobar to not overlook the "potentially disastrous situation of politically voiceless and powerless groups" who lack the political leverage to challenge capitalist forces.68 She contends that "Escobar's presentation of the new social movements as viable alternatives to development is severely flawed, because he does not examine the political milieu in which the social movements are enmeshed."69 She also stresses the importance that some development workers and government agents have played in lending support to marginalized peoples, pointing out that, in some regions, NGOs have played a major role in organizing and politicizing "grassroots movements." In addition, Autumn claims that most social movements must learn to interact with local and national governments if they are to have any hope of achieving their goals. She writes: "Romancizing the grassroots, Escobar leaves unanswered the crucial question of how the new movements can convince power holders that it is in their ultimate interest to permit grassroots self empowerment."70 Escobar has also been challenged for his tendency to generalize lessons learned from Colombian rain forest movements to the rest of the world. Some critics have argued that his analysis would be much stronger if he worked to present a more detailed account of the intricacies of the Colombian experience, instead of trying to extend his conclusions to other Third World movements. Berger stresses that Escobar's model is only applicable to indigenous peoples and peasants living in rural areas, and completely ignores the plight of urban underclasses, In addition, Escobar does not offer any ideas about how landless peasants and 166

DavislEco- Logics

refugees, most of whom have already been severely affected by external forces, might begin to engage with dominant institutions.U I would add that even rural peasants who have some access to land, but do not have control over resources that are seen as being of value to capitalist interests, risk slipping through the cracks of Escobar's model. He appears to underestimate the significance of the political leverage provided by the biological riches found on the Colombian Coast. The region represents a veritable bonanza for First World bioprospectors, in search of new genetic strains to patent. Armed with the genetic capital of the rainforest, social movements have been able to negotiate with capitalist and state bodies in ways that would not have been thinkable previously. It may be that the success of Colombian movements in reasserting control over the modernization process has led Escobar to overestimate the political power of Third World social movements generally. The question that remains unanswered in Escobar's analysis is how peoples living in regions that do not boast the biotic resources of Colombia, or lack access to new information technologies, are expected to take part in this postmodern resistance. For example, what hope might there be for people living in the far north, where plant biodiversity is minimal? Although a small amount of bioprospecting for fish and seal DNA has taken place in northern regions, sophisticated copyrighting schemes have robbed local people of any capacity to profit from or control these operations over the long-term. The plight of northern peoples throughout the world is missed by Escobar's equation of north with prosperity, and south with marginality (as well as biodiversity). Although Escobar has not responded directly to his interlocutors in print, he has acknowledged the contribution made by antiessentialist critiques of his work.72His only cautionary note has been to remind his critics that "their own project of analyzing the contestation of development on the ground was in great part made possible by the deconstruction of development discourse ... "73He has further stated that it was never his goal to present the truth about development. In his words, "This was everybody else's project, and part of the problem from the post-development perspective."74 167

Studies in Political Economy

Strategic Universalism and the Promise of Conceptual Blending While I share Escobar's hope that it might be possible to forge a political theory that recognizes that there is no single truth without abandoning the quest for social justice, this project remains incomplete in his work. Although Escobar is helpful in calling for the formation of networks between like-minded movements, he abandons the search for an overarching paradigm that might help to unite these groups in a global struggle. Escobar is so intent on discarding all relics of modernist language that he systematically excludes the possibility of what might be called "strategic universalism."75 I am left wondering whether it might still be politically advantageous for subaltern groups and critical scholars to selectively employ conceptual tools derived from modernist theories, such as the discourse of "human rights" or of "the world system," in spite of the fact that they are rooted in certain essentializing axioms. This would enable these groups to engage with poststructuralist critiques without completely abandoning the notion of universality. Such conceptual blending may provide a kind of patchwork solution that allows for the embracing of the politically useful elements of the antiessentialist turn, such as Escobar's concept of hybridity, without completely abandoning generalized calls for social justice. Another way of bridging the divide between modernist and poststructuralist approaches might eventually emerge from recent efforts to move toward a "biocultural synthesis."76 number of authors have sought to build new analytA ical frameworks that recognize that subjectivity is socially and politically constructed, while conceding that it is also shaped through interactions with a pre-discursive biophysical
world."?

Conclusion Escobar's work represents an original contribution to the study of power. By questioning the very foundations of modernist thought, he succeeds in exposing many of the patronizing and essentializing tendencies that have plagued the development enterprise since its inception. His refusal to accept scientific and economic discourses at face value enables him to launch powerful poststructuralist critiques of taken-for-granted concepts like "nature" and 168

DavislEco- Logics

"development." Furthermore, Escobar's writings stand as a much-needed warning to critical scholars to avoid being seduced by the sustainable development and biodiversity discourses that have taken hold in recent years. Instead, he urges his readers to recognize that, more often than not, these new projects continue to elevate First World professionals into positions of power. A serious deficiency in Escobar's writings is his failure to provide a detailed description of the ways in which power operates within grassroots social movements. As a result, he risks obscuring the tensions that exist within these movements. In addition, Escobar treats development workers and government officials as though they are incapable of acting outside of the roles prescribed by their professions, and this leads him to downplay the extent to which development policies are enacted differently in different contexts. Escobar's tendency to extrapolate from the Colombian case in hailing grassroots movements as a salvation for subaltern groups everywhere is also problematic. In suggesting that other Third World social movements can resist conventional development processes by selectively engaging with the highly capitalistic world of technonature, Escobar seems out of touch with the predicaments of many of the world's most marginalized peoples, who lack access to marketable resources and new information technologies. The question of whether some "top-down" global initiatives might be justified in assisting these less fortunate groups in their struggles remains unanswered in Escobar's work. I have suggested that the concept of strategic universalism offers one way of using critical tools derived from Escobar's poststructuralist analysis, while retaining some universalizing concepts, like human rights, which continue to have utility in many contemporary struggles for social justice. Notes
1. Thanks to Arturo Escobar whose engaging writings have done so much to further my thinking. I would also like to give special thanks to Wayne Fife who first encouraged me to pursue this project. Although I take full responsibility for its final contents, earlier drafts of the manuscript benefited from insightful comments by Sharon Roseman, Barbara Neis, John Kennedy, Rhonda Burke, Dean Bavington, Rumel Halder, Fiona Mackenzie and Christina Rojas. Financial support during the research-

169

Studies in Political Economy

2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

ing and writing of this article was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Coasts Under Stress Research Project, and Memorial University. Arturo Escobar, "Constructing Nature: Elements for a Poststructural Political Ecology," in R. Peet and M. Watts, (eds.), Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements (London and New York: Routledge, 1996),pp. 46-68. Ibid, p. 55. Ibid. Arturo Escobar, Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995). Arturo Escobar, "Planning," in W. Sachs, (ed.), The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power (London and New Jersey: Zed Books Ltd., 1992),p.135. Escobar, Encountering Development ... , 1995,p. 10. Ibid, p. 8. Escobar, "Planning," (1992), p. 136. Arturo Escobar, "Anthropology and Development," International Social Science Journal 154 (1997),pp. 497-515. Escobar, Encountering Development ..., (1995). Arturo Escobar, "After Nature: Steps to an Antiessentialist Political Ecology," Current Anthropology 40/1 (1999), pp. 1-30; S. Hvalkof and Arturo Escobar, "Nature, Political Ecology, and Social Practice: Toward an Academic and Political Agenda," in A.H. Goodman and T.L. Leatherman, (eds.), Building a New Biocultural Synthesis: PoliticalEconomic Perspectives on Human Biology (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1998),pp. 425-450. Escobar, "After Nature." Ibid. Ibid. Arturo Escobar, "Welcome to Cyberia: Notes on the Anthropology of Cyberculture," Current Anthropology 35/3 (1994), pp. 211-231. Escobar, "Constructing Nature;" Escobar, "After Nature." Arturo Escobar, "Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature? Biodiversity, Conservation, and the Political Ecology of Social Movements," Journal of Political Ecology 5 (1998), pp. 53-82;Escobar, "After Nature." Although Escobar (1996) sees the sustainable development discourse as growing in influence, he does not argue that it will eventually displace more conventional forms of development. Rather, Escobar describes a world in which new conservationist forms of capitalism coexist with more destructive forms. Escobar, "Constructing Nature," p. 51. Ibid.; Escobar, "After Nature." Escobar, "Constructing Nature," p. 51. Ibid., p. 52. Ibid., p. 52. Escobar, "Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature?" Ibid.; Escobar, "After Nature." Escobar, "Constructing Nature;" Escobar, "Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature?" Escobar, "After Nature." In an earlier essay, EscObar (1994) uses the term "cyberculture" to describe many of the same trends that he later subsumes under the "technonature" label.

170

DavislEco- Logics

30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

37. 38.

39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

48.

49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61.

Escobar, "After Nature," p. 11. Escobar, "Welcome to Cyberia;" Escobar, "Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature";" Escobar "After Nature." Escobar, Encountering Development ... , 1995, p. 226. Escobar, "Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature?" p. 54. Escobar, "After Nature." Ibid, p. 13. This perspective owes an obvious debt to Donna Haraway's (1991) argument that there are now unprecedented opportunities to create hybrid, or "cyborg," identities by selectively drawing upon organic, technological, and textual elements. This influence is well acknowledged by Escobar (1999). Escobar, "Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature"," p. 64 "Culture, Economics, and Politics in Latin American Social Movements Theory and Research," in A. Escobar and S.E. Alvarez, (eds.), The Making of Social Movements in Latin America: Identity, Strategy, and Democracy (Boulder, San Francisco and Oxford: Westview Press, 1992). Escobar, Encountering Development ... , (1995), p. 219. Hvalkof and Escobar, "Nature, Political Ecology and Social Practice;" Escobar, "Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature"," p. 54; Escobar, "After Nature." "Culture Sits in Places: Reflections on Globalism and Subaltern Strategies of Localization," Political Geography 20 (2001), p. 170. K. Milton, "Comments on 'After Nature: Toward an Antiessentialist Political Ecology," Current Anthropology 40/1 (1999), pp. 21-22. S. Stonich, "Comments on "After Nature: Toward an Antiessentialist Political Ecology," Current Anthropology 40/1 (1999), pp. 23-24. Ibid, p. 24. E.N. Anderson, "On an Antiessentialist Political Ecology," Current Anthropology 41/1 (2000), p. 105. D. Lehmann, "An Opportunity Lost: Escobar's Deconstruction of Development," Journal of Development Studies 33/4 (1997), p. 575. Ibid., p. 575. Ibid., p. 575. Arturo Escobar, "Beyond the Search for a Paradigm? Post Development and Beyond," Development 43/4 (2001), p. 2. Ibid., p. 2. Escobar, "Constructing Nature," p. 46. P.O. Little and M. Painter, "Discourse, Politics, and the Development Process: Reflections on Escobar's "Anthropology and the Development Encounter," American Ethnologist 22/3 (1997), p. 605. Ibid, p. 606. Escobar, "Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature?," p. 437. Ibid, p. 437. Escobar, "After Nature," pp. 25-26. Little and Painter, "Discourse, Politics and the Development Process," p.605. Lehmann, "An Opportunity Lost," p. 573. S. Autumn, "Anthropologists, Development, and Situated Truth," Human Organization 55/4 (1996), pp. 480-484. D.S. Moore, "The Crucible of Cultural Politics: Reworking "Development" in Zimbabwe's Eastern Highlands," American Ethnologist 26/3 (2000), pp. 654-689. lbid., p. 659.

171

Studies in Political Economy

62. 63. 64. 65.

66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77.

M.T. Berger, "Post-Cold War Capitalism: Modernization and Modes of Resistance After the Fall," Third World Quarterly 16/4 (1995), p. 720. J.D. Hill, "Comments on "'After Nature: Toward an Antiessentialist Political Ecology," Current Anthropology 40/1 (1999), pp. 18-19. M.P. Cowan and R.W. Shenton, Doctrines of Development (London and New York: Routledge, 1996). This criticism may not be wholly justified. Escobar and Alvarez (1992) coedited a book about Latin American social movements which explicitly addressed the question of internal differentiation. While Escobar is clearly aware of the fact that all social movements are characterized by heterogeneity and internal conflicts; many of his subsequent writings tend to gloss over this issue. This may be due to the fact that, in these later writings, he has become more concerned with exploring the ways in which group identities are reified for political purposes, and less interested in exploring the specific tensions that continue to exist within them. Autumn, "Anthropologists, Development and Situated Truth," p. 482. D.A. Cleveland, "Comments on "'After Nature: Toward an Antiessentialist Political Ecology,''' Current Anthropology 40/1 (1999), pp.17-18. Autumn, "Anthropologists, Development and Situated Truth," p. 480. Ibid., p. 481. Ibid., p. 482. Berger, "Post-Cold War Capitalism)' Escobar, "Beyond the Search for a Paradigm." Ibid., p. 2. Ibid., p. 2. R. Davis, "Open Concepts: Critical Transformations in Anthropological Studies of Ecology," Unpublished Manuscript. A.H. Goodman and T.L. Leatherman, (eds.). Building a New Biocultural Synthesis: Political-Economic Perspectives on Human Biology (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1998). P. Descola and G. Palsson, (eds.), Nature and Society: Anthropological Perspectives (London and New York: Routledge, 1996); Goodman and Leatherman, (eds.), Building a New Biocultural Synthesis ... ,1998; 1. Scoones, "New Ecology and the Social Scierices: What Prospects for Fruitful Engagement?" Annual Review of Anthropology 28 (1999), pp. 479-507.

172