Arturo Escobar - Simon Batterbury



Sunday, May 08, 2005

Lots of people are downloading this draft. Please consider getting the book in which it was later published.

Batterbury, S.P.J  and J.L. Fernando. 2004. Arturo Escobar. In P. Hubbard, R. Kitchin and G. Valentine  (eds.) Key thinkers on space and place. London: Sage. Pp113-120

Order book:

Review essays on Key Thinkers on Space and Place were published in Environment and Planning A 2005, volume 37(1) January, pages 161 – 187 [Mark Boyle, Richard Peet, Claudio Minca, Michael Samers, Kirsten Simonsen, Mark Purcell, Elspeth Graham, Phil Hubbbard, Rob Kitchin, Gill Valentine]. Those essays could be downloaded from the publisher’s website until recently – now they require a subscription (too expensive for most libraries, alas). Dick Peet pointed out that we had overlooked the formative influence of several key thinkers on Escobar himself, particularly when at Berkeley – a fair point.

Arturo Escobar

by

Simon Batterbury and Jude L. Fernando

Simon Batterbury (PhD, Clark University) is lecturer in environmental studies at the University of Melbourne, Australia. He formerly taught geography at the University of Arizona (USA) and Brunel University (UK), and development studies at the London School of Economics (UK) and Roskilde University (Denmark). He has worked on political ecology, rural development, and environmental management in francophone West Africa since 1992, and edited five collections on environment and development issues.

Jude Fernando is a Sri Lankan political economist (PhD, University of Pennsylvania) and currently assistant professor of international development at Clark University, USA. His research interests include South Asian rural development, NGOs and microcredit schemes, and human rights. He is editor of four collections on development issues, most recently on microcredit (Routledge, 2005) and is completing a monograph on the political economy of NGOs (Pluto, 2006).

Biographical Details and Theoretical Context

Arturo Escobar was born in Manizales, Colombia, in 1952, and first trained as a chemical engineer, graduating from the Universidad del Valle in Cali in 1975. After a year of studying biochemistry at medical school, he relocated to the USA, completing a Masters in Food Science and International Nutrition at Cornell in 1978 (his first article was on maize beer, published in 1981) before enrolling in an interdisciplinary PhD program at Berkeley. By this time, Escobar’s interests had undergone a major shift towards the social sciences and questions of power, international development and planning. Doctoral work, which included a year of fieldwork in Colombia, saw early expression in a brilliant article published in the Indian journal Alternatives, where he applied Foucault’s notions of power to the study of international development (Escobar 1984). His theoretical argument - that development should be seen as a discourse of power and control - was new and challenging, and by the early 1990s Escobar was established as a leading thinker among a strong group of ‘post-development’ theorists including Ashis Nandy, Wolfgang Sachs and James Ferguson (Escobar, 1992, Rahnema and Bawtree 1997). Having competed three years as a lecturer in Latin American Studies at University of California at Santa Cruz in 1989, Escobar moved firmly into the discipline of anthropology, beginning as assistant professor at Smith College, and then shifting nearby to the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, where he taught for five years. In 2000 he became the Kenan Distinguished Teaching Professor of Anthropology, University of North Carolina. Shorter periods spent teaching in Colombia, the UK, and Spain, and frequent speaking engagements worldwide, have exposed different audiences to his work.

Few 20th century ideas of have sparked such a prolonged controversy as that of Western ‘development’, and it was Escobar’s major monograph, Encountering Development (1995) - an elaboration of the work he had been conducting since the 1980s - that has elevated him to the status of post-development icon. For many critics today, development has reached an impasse. Escobar and the post development theorists have built upon the work of many others to expose how “…development was shown to be a pervasive cultural discourse with profound consequences for the production of social reality in the so-called Third World.” (Escobar 2000:11). In his later work, Escobar has begun to look beyond the failures and limitations of state, market and international aid, to a form of social change led by new social movements and progressive non-governmental organizations.

This second strand to Escobar’s work emerged in the mid 1990s, when he conducted a year of fieldwork on the Pacific coast of Colombia, the first of several periods during which he worked with Afro-Colombians (descendants from African slaves brought to mine gold) and their activist organizations and networks in the region (Escobar 1996b). The coast is a hot-spot of biological diversity, and has endured the attention of bioprospectors, as well as several resource conservation projects. It is home to rights movements with a strong sense of place and territory, and Escobar’s research traverses his belief in the power of these place-based social movements as alternatives to national and western development efforts, and his interests in nature, which he describes as a 'constructed’ category that becomes immersed in discursive and material struggles (over the meaning of biodiversity and sustainability, for example). Some of his work in this region of Colombia is, therefore, framed in the language of political ecology, and geographical concepts of place and territory are critical to his analysis (Escobar 1996a, 1998, 2001).

Geographical contributions

Escobar believes in the “task of imagining alternatives” (1995: 14), and his work is stimulating and provocative. Aside from a wide-ranging conversation that has developed around his post-development critique in anthropology and development studies, some geographers have used his analysis as a point of departure for studies on social movements and development alternatives.

Turning first to Escobar’s theorizing of development, we find much of interest to geography, even though he himself claims that his engagement with the discipline has been modest (pers comm, 2003). The ideas expressed in Encountering Development, for example, highlight some of the spatial outcomes of the hegemonic ‘development’ discourse since colonial times. The argument is that Western ‘development’, particularly during the Cold War, lies behind the construction of almost all aspects of social reality in the Third World, in such a pervasive way that “that even its opponents were obliged to phrase their critiques in development terms: another development, participatory development, socialist development, and so on." (Peet and Hartwick 1999: 145). Discourse, he argues, has the power to influence reality, following Edward Said’s theory of Orientalism (Said: 1978: 3). The production of knowledge and the planning of development by western institutions is something that third world countries and regions find it hard to escape from. The process of dominating, restructuring, and establishing authority progresses in three stages:

(1) The progressive identification of third world problems, to be treated by specific interventions. This creates a "field of the interventions of power."

(2) The professionalization of development; the recasting of political problems into neutral scientific terms (poverty indicators, for example), leading to a regime of truth and norms, or a "field of the control of knowledge."

(3) The institutionalization of development to treat these ‘problems’, and the formation of a network of new sites of power/knowledge that bind people to certain behaviors and rationalities (in rural development discourse, “produce or perish” became one such norm - Escobar 1995: 157).

The professionalization of development in the post WW II war period, Escobar argues, incorporated the Third World as research data in “academic programs, conferences, consultancy services and local extension services and so on” but also poverty, illiteracy and hunger “became the basis for an industry for planners, experts and civil servants” (1995: 46). Since this industry never stops producing goods in the form of new projects and reports, but actually achieves its targets only rarely, it justifies its own continued existence.

The development discourse has, therefore, created underdevelopment of the third world in a much more subtle form than colonialism. Escobar’s words are purposely harsh, and they suggest an instrumental aim lying behind a universal (Western) paradigm in which many people, including western geographers, anthropologists, and other social scientists are complicit. The very idea of development is framed by the Western geopolitical imagination that seeks to “subordinate, contain and assimilate the Third World as Other. Such Western imagination is a violation of the rights of the other societies”. (Slater 1993:421).

As alternatives, Escobar favors the responses of indigenous/autonomous social movements, and localized strategies of development, rather than the radical overturning of western-dominated geopolitical relations by the state at a macro level, as was proposed by earlier dependency theorists. Like Stuart Corbridge and Michael Watts, he argues that emancipatory possibilities exist, because criticism of the ‘mainstream’ can translate into viable alternatives, and the types of new social movements made famous by writers like Manual Castells (1983) can create new conversational communities. Place-based social movements need “territory”, in which their livelihoods or life project are largely conducted, but they also operate in a “region-territory”, which is a “political construction for the defense of the territories and their sustainability” (2001: 162). This can include more extensive networks, including those now offered by internet technology; his examples include the U’wa indigenous group in Colombia who have mobilized against the Colombian government and Occidental Petroleum to oppose oil exploration (Escobar and Harcourt, 2002). Escobar follows many scholars of indigenous rights in stressing the attachment such groups feel to particular places - ”The struggle for territory is thus a cultural struggle for autonomy and self-determination. This explains why for many people of the Pacific the loss of territory would amount to a return to slavery or, worse perhaps, to becoming “common citizens” (Escobar 2001: 162). Social movements are therefore intimately linked to local geographies; culture resides in places, even under conditions of mass globalization.

In his work addressing matters of nature and the environment, Escobar makes further claims which are of interest to those working around the slippery interdisciplinary field of political ecology, to which anthropologists and geographers have contributed in equal measure (Escobar 1999a,1998 and forthcoming). Escobar’s arguments here are complex, but revolve around that view that much of nature is now artificially produced and in some fashion, deeply imbricated with technology and social relations, and that these relationships are “hybrid and multiform” (Escobar 1999a: 1). He defines political ecology as “the contingent study of the manifold articulations of history and biology and the cultural mediations through which such articulations are necessarily established”. (1999a:3). This broad-ranging definition neatly combines the concerns of ‘realists’ interested in the material transformations of the natural world by human actions (cultural ecologists, for example, and the majority of geographers calling themselves political ecologists) and those who perceive nature as a historically and socially constructed category.

Political ecology, for Escobar, should be anti-essentialist, in order to situate the complex of meanings of nature-human relations in the larger context of history and power. He identifies three distinct but interlinked nature regimes, and delineates their characteristics. The regime of organic nature is most commonly found in non-industrialized societies, and best analyzed through anti-dualist conceptions of nature-culture and local knowledge. Capitalist nature is that which is commodified (as in the case of bioprospecting operations) and governed. The third, technonature, is artificial, newly manipulated through biotechnology and engineering. These three regimes are not a series of linear stages towards modern life - “They coexist and overlap" (1999:5) and raise substantive questions about the power of discourses about nature – even the term biodiversity resulted from a modern scientific worldview, and such activities are protected through networks, actors and strategies (Escobar 1998). Escobar urges the creation of a balanced position that, according to David Cleveland, "acknowledges the constructedness of nature-the fact that much of what ecologists refer to as nature is a product of culture- and nature in the real sense, that is existence of an order of nature, including the body." (Cleveland 1999:17).

The type of political ecology advocated by Escobar intends to go beyond naturalism, the common philosophical foundation behind nature conservation, because nature and culture are in fact hybridized as ‘cultured nature.’ This analysis of hybridization, in a non-essentialist and trans-disciplinary way, makes Escobar’s study of nature distinctive. It can be glimpsed indirectly in new, critical geographical work that stresses the social construction of nature and the imposition of dominant discourses. Examples here include work on ‘fortress conservation’ and wilderness protection in Africa (Neumann 1998) and Central America (Sundberg 1998), and in critiques of sustainable development (Rocheleau 2001) and bureaucratic forestry (Robbins 2001). In anthropology, new varieties of political ecology are constantly evolving, with Fairhead and Leach’s Misreading the African Landscape offering a counter to dominant western views of forest loss (1996), and Stone’s work on the perils of genetic modification offering empirical data on ‘technonatures’ in action (2002).

Key advances and controversies

Since Escobar’s major argument has been to challenge the language, discourse, and project of mainstream development as a failed modernist project, a critical response to these ideas has been all but inevitable, and it has come from several quarters.

A group of critics argue that his attack on development misses the target, since “the problem is not so much with development, even less so with modernity, than with capitalism” (Escobar 2000:12). Peet and Watts (1996) and most of their contributors to their book, Liberation Ecology, wish to balance the attention given to discourses with analysis of the impact of material transformations, while Peet and Hartwick (1999) and Kiely (1999) are more blunt; capitalist material relations have penetrated all corner of the globe. Thus, development discourse has arisen first and foremost from the spread of capitalism (Fernando and Kamat, 2000). This critique, therefore, sees the post-development project as partial. Progressive change requires the transformation of the social relations that produced and that sustain the discourse, and this needs active intervention against capitalism (i.e. a new and revolutionary form of development itself), and global solidarity.

A related concern is that development – including the actions of the state- has, of course, long contained progressive critical voices and practices, and is far from monolithic in its opposition to local and marginal voices (Gardner and Lewis, 1996, Lehmann 1997). Lumping together progressive aid agencies or the actions of radical NGOs, with the worst technocratic and domineering aid projects practicing their craft on their ‘clients’, and then collectively condemning the totality as an instrument of Western power (as passages in Encountering Development come close to doing), denies these differences and denigrates some of those genuinely involved in radical praxis. It also denies the possibility that development anthropology can promote better development or state policies, using ethnographic and technical skills (Gardner and Lewis 1996, Little and Painter, 1995). Discourse analysis may, therefore, tend to throw together diverse and contested positions of development simply because they ‘share the same discursive space.’ Escobar may, therefore be practicing a form of essentialism after all (Fernando and Kamat, 2000, Kiely, 1999)

A third question concerns the power of placed-based social movements. There is much evidence that many local activist struggles are not really about overturning the status quo or challenging the global and national power relations in which they are embedded, but are more concerned with gaining access to development resources, some of them modern and western - capital, paid labor, education, health, and so-on. The argument goes that because capitalism is crisis-ridden, and it is a contradictory and uneven process, its ideology permeates everywhere, including to distant social movements and their members. The most convincing critique of post-development in general, and of Escobar’s work in particular, is along these lines. It comes from geographer Tony Bebbington in ‘Reencountering Development’ (2000). Bebbington tries to resolve the debate between post-development, and the neoliberal interpretations informed by neoclassical economics (pro-market, and modernizing), to call for a notion of development that is alternative, critical and practicable. He argues not only that the post-development case has theoretical shortcomings, but that it falls down empirically in the Andes, when put to the test in study of peasant culture and livelihoods. Criticisms of development’s failures in the region are too blunt: plenty of cases exist in the Andes where symbols of failed development - high levels of out-migration, increased consumption of western commodities, and imported knowledge and technologies - have been accompanied by “increased indigenous control of everything from municipal government, to regional textile markets, to bus companies” and ”assertive and ever more ethnically self-conscious social organizations” (2000: 496). Thus, alternatives to capitalist landscapes can emerge from all sorts of ‘development’ activities. Integral to these alternatives have been the work of the state (particularly its enabling of land reform), NGOS, and churches. Post-development thinking either denies, or does not examine their influence, and does not seriously address what peasant farmers must do in the short term make a living and to sustain their communities. Therefore we need to foreground “problems of livelihood and production as much as problems of politics and power” and “emphasize negotiation and accommodation as much as resistance”. (Bebbington 2000:449).

In addressing some of these criticisms, Escobar has voiced some sympathy with the more radical (and post-structuralist) critics of post-development thinking, but he disputes the arguments that assert the "the primacy of the material over the discursive" –partly on the grounds that insufficient attention is usually given to the role of language and meaning in the creation of reality (Escobar 2000:12). Nonetheless, movements form broader networks of power, and thus he sees Marxist geography as essentially correct in arguing for the grounding of place and identity-based social movements in wider political coalitions; he does recognize that social struggles, like those of the U’wa, form networks, “in their theoretical and practical action - that is, in the production of alternative discourses” (Escobar and Harcourt 2002: 4), and particularly around gender responsibilities and rights (the focus of some of his recent work). But he also acknowledges the valuable insights provided by a group of ‘actor-oriented’ sociologists and anthropologists that register power in a different way, tracing it across the interfaces between actors – for example between peasant farmers and NGO workers, exposing their mutual constructions, sense of identity, and actions, uncovered through detailed ethnography (Arce and Long 2000). Francophone anthropology and work on rural politics has, in fact, taken these debates further, to highlight the subversion of development by peasant groups and the work of a whole class of ‘interlocutors’ who shuttle between rural communities and the development industry, representing one to the other (Batterbury 2002, Bierschenk et al, 2000 Olivier de Sardan 1995). He also has sympathies with Bebbington’s alternative take on livelihoods and development (2000). However he refuses to respond to a persistent criticism that post-development offers no concrete political and economic program for change. This, he says, is precisely the normative goal of most development thinking, and it is something he and his colleagues are trying escape from. The future is, then, up to people themselves, and their social movements must elaborate their own paths (Escobar 2000: 14).

Escobar’s thoughts on political ecology and the study of nature have attracted comment, but his interventions in this area are relatively new and untested, and will feature in two forthcoming volumes, one with Enrique Leff. David Cleveland (1999:18) argues that essentialism is more difficult to escape from than Escobar makes out. For example, he says that "in the organic regime nature is not manipulated” (Cleveland 1999:18), but this ignores the actions of certain pre-modern peoples, who clearly did exploit natural capital to an advanced degree (see Escobar 1998, which partially addressed this). One of the founders of the field, Piers Blaikie (2000) takes on the implicit populism and support of the underdog in post-development thinking more generally, and perceives the analysis to be lacking in detailed research into development processes and policy. His view is that ‘real’ natural resource problems exist, and it is unhelpful to de-emphasize this. However it is also true that the critical geographical studies that do employ discourse analysis have found ways to apply it quite effectively to specific development ‘problems’ and places, and there is great value in combining this type of analysis with other forms of investigation (Rocheleau 2001, Neumann 1998, Peet and Watts 1996), some of them involving a greater degree of ecological analysis than Escobar has chosen, and more attention to the politics of gender (Rocheleau 1999).

Despite this we should not diminish the power of Escobar’s key political message - local culture matters. The grand revisionism in the classical Marxist account of social change gives way to something much more modest and localized in his work – “grand theorizing is part of the problem” (Escobar and Harcourt 2002: 4). Understanding local social movements and their actions does provide an important role for anthropology, a discipline that like geography has an ugly past in its dealings with hegemonic discourses and colonialism. Nonetheless, the stronger Marxist and poststructuralist critics of Escobar’s work, who argue that the material impact of capitalism must be the main target of any critical interventions, suggest that whatever one’s particular ideology of development or wish-list for change, these need to begin somewhere. Even if nature and culture are hybridized, we need to isolate some essential elements within and between these hybrid regimes, and try to rectify them. This should not prove so difficult, we suggest, where it is clearly the case that capital, as the overarching economic system, is directly responsible for social and human injustices. This also means that we look critically at social movements themselves – they are not to be romanticized, and many are far from progressive and can be nationalist, fundamentalist, or insensitive to human rights and gender difference (Keily 1999). Escobar is, of course, well aware of this (Escobar and Harcourt, 2002).

In conclusion, Escobar's “journey of the imagination” has taken him a long way forward in “reconceiving and reconstructing the world from the perspective of, and along with, those subaltern groups that continue to enact a cultural politics of difference as they struggle to defend their places, ecologies, and cultures” (Escobar 2000:15). The sentiment is laudable and his work, which remains controversial for the reasons set out above, has helped to foreground local culture and to transform thinking on development hegemonies and practices.

Escobar’s major works

Escobar, A. 1984. "Discourse and Power in Development: Michel Foucault and the Relevance of his Work to the Third World." Alternatives 10(3): 377-400.

Alvarez S, Dagnino E and A Escobar (eds) 1998. Cultures of Politics/Politics of Cultures: Revisioning Latin American Social Movements Boulder: Westview Press. Also published in Portuguese and Spanish.

Alvarez S and A Escobar (eds.) 1992 The Making of Social Movements in Latin America: Identity, Strategy, and Democracy Boulder: Westview Press

Escobar, A. 1995 Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World Princeton: Princeton University Press. (In Spanish, Bogotá: Editorial Norma, 1998)

Escobar, A. 1999a. "After Nature: Steps to an Anti-essentialist Political Ecology." Current Anthropology 40 (1): 1-30

Escobar, A. 1999b. El Final del Salvaje: Naturaleza, Cultura y Politica en las Sociedades Contemporaneas. Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano de Antropología.

Secondary sources and references

Arce, A. and N. Long (eds). 2000. Anthropology, Development and Modernities. London: Routledge.

Batterbury, S.P.J. 2002. Discursive review of "Courtiers en développement: les villages africains en quête de projets".  Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 20 (1): 20-25

Bebbington, A.J. 2000. Re-encountering Development: Livelihood Transitions and Place

Transformations in the Andes. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 90 (3) 495-520.

Bierschenk, T., J.-P. Chauveau & J.-P. Olivier de Sardan (eds.) 2000. Courtiers en développement: Les villages africains en quête de projets Paris: Editions Karthala.

Blaikie, P. 2000. Development, post-, anti-, and populist: a critical review. Environment and Planning A, 32 (6) 1033 - 1050

Cleveland, D. 1999. Comments on Escobar. Current Anthropology 40 (1): 17-18.

Escobar, A. 1992. "Planning." In The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. Wolfgang Sachs, ed. Pp. 132-145. London: Zed Books.

Escobar, A. 1996. Constructing Nature: Elements for a Poststructuralist Political Ecology. In Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements. Richard Peet and Michael Watts, eds.. London: Routledge. Pp. 46-68.

Escobar, A. 1998 Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature? Biodiversity, Conservation, and the Political Ecology of Social Movements . Journal of Political Ecology 5.

Escobar, A. and A. Pedrosa (eds) 1996b. Pacífico, Desarrollo o Diversidad? Estado, Capital y Movimientos Sociales en el Pacífico Colombiano. Bogotá: CEREC/Ecofondo.

Escobar, A. 2000. Beyond the Search for a Paradigm? Post-development and Beyond. Development 43(4): 11-14.

Escobar, A. 2001. “Culture Sits in Places. Reflections on Globalism and Subaltern Strategies of Globalization.” Political Geography 20 (2001): 139-174.

Escobar, A and Harcourt, W. 2002. The intersection of women, culture and development: visions for the future. SID website.

(short version: 2002. "Lead Article: Women and the Politics of Place". Development 45 (1): 7-14 – I could not get hold of this in time though to readjust any quotes).

Escobar, A. and E. Leff. Forthcoming. After Nature: Re-visioning Sustainability and Conservation

Escobar, A. forthcoming. Hybrid Natures: Cultural and Biological Diversity at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century

Fairhead, J and Leach, M. 1996. Misreading the African Landscape: Society and Ecology in a Forest-Savanna Mosaic. Cambridge University Press.

Fernando, J.F. and S. Kamat. 2000. Response to Ray Kylie and Arturo Escobar. Development (on line forum, )

Gardner, K. and D. Lewis 1996. Anthropology, Development and the Post-Modern

Challenge. London: Pluto Press.

Kiely, R. 1999 The Last Refuge of the Noble savage? A Critical Assessment of Post-

Development Theory’, The European Journal of Development Research 11(1): 30-55.

Lehmann, D. 1997 An Opportunity Lost: Escobar’s Deconstruction of Development,

Journal of Development Studies 33(4): 568-578.

Little, P. and M. Painter 1995 Discourse, Politics, and the Development Process: Reflections on Escobar’s “Anthropology and the Development Encounter” American Ethnologist 22(3): 602-616.

Neumann, R. 1998. Imposing Wilderness:  Struggles over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa. University of California Press. 

Olivier de Sardan, J.-P. 1995. Anthropologie et développement: Essai en socio-anthropologie du changement social. Paris: Editions Karthala.

Peet, R. and E. Hartwick. 1999. Theories of Development. New York: Guilford Press.

Peet, R. and Watts, M.J. (eds.) 1996. Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements. London: Routledge.

Pieterse, J.N. 1998 My Paradigm of Yours? Alternative Development, Post-Development, and Reflexive Development. Development and Change 29: 343-373.

Rahnema M. with V.Bawtree 1997 The Post-Development Reader London: Zed.

Robbins, P. 2001. "Tracking Invasive Land Covers in India or Why Our Landscapes Have Never Been Modern." Annals of the Association of American Geographers . 2001. 91(4): 637-654.

Rocheleau, D. 1999 Comments on Escobar. Current Anthropology 40 (1): 22-23

Rocheleau, D. et al., 2001. Complex communities and emergent ecologies in the regional agroforest of Zambrana-Chacuey, Dominican Republic. Ecumene 8(4): 465-92.

Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books; London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; Toronto: Random House

Slater, D. 1993. The Geopolitical Imagination and the Enframing of Development Theory, Transactions of the IBG

Stone, G.D. 2002 Both Sides Now: Fallacies in the Genetic-Modification Wars, Implications for Developing Countries, and Anthropological Perspectives. Current Anthropology, 43(5):611-630

Sundberg, J. 1998. Strategies for Authenticity, Space, and Place in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Petén, Guatemala. Conference of Latin Americanist Geographers Yearbook 24:85-96.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download