40
2
Consequently, Piers Blaikie as a social scientist proposed an approach to understanding environmental problems by, on the one hand, problematizing the quality
and uncertainty of scientific data, and on the other hand, insisting that the production, interpretation and use of environmental data are inherently political (Rigg
2006; Simon 2008).
In fact, Blaikie’s two classics in political ecology (Blaikie 1985; Blaikie and
Brookfield 1987) have inspired a whole stream of political ecology scholarship that
engages with ecology and natural science, but without making a priori judgements
about political-economic causation.
Despite this literature, also within political ecology itself, there has been a
debate about the place and role of ecology. In a key contribution to this debate,
Walker (2005) asks where the ecology is in political ecology and whether the field
has become ‘politics without ecology’.
In opposition to this view, Michael Watts has criticized some political ecology
for paying too close attention to natural aspects (‘ecology’) and too little attention
to ‘political’ aspects (Peet and Watts 1996; Watts 1997). Watts holds that this leads
to an atheoretical approach, which lacks a general theory of social change that
would explain environmental degradation. This debate may be seen to reflect different directions within political ecology between an approach engaging actively
with natural science and ecology and one focusing on social theory and ‘politics’.
In a contribution to this debate and echoing Vayda and Walters (1999), Forsyth
and Walker (2008) argue that conventional approaches to political ecology have a
priori linked environmental degradation to the impacts of global capitalism.
A critical political ecology would, however, critically and empirically examine
all environmental representations whether based on Malthusianism or a critique of
capitalism. This also implies investigating rather than assuming ‘the essentialist
link between capitalism and environmental degradation’ that often is found in the
development literature (Forsyth 2003). Critical political ecologies would combine
deconstructions of narratives with a realist belief in science as a means to achieve
more accurate descriptions and understandings of environmental realities. Such
combinations of realist and constructivist positions are referred to as a critical
realist position (see 7 Chap. 1). According to Forsyth (2001), critical realism seeks
to understand ecological change through a combination of epistemological scepticism and ontological realism.
Blaikie (1999), however, points out that political ecological critiques of claims
of degradation in fact owe more to realist science than to constructionism. Hence,
critical political ecology has to a large extent been based on realist investigations to
identify environmental change and its causes.
2.3 Poststructuralism
In political ecology, Michel Foucault (1926–1984) has been the most influential
poststructuralist thinker. Poststructuralism emerged in France in the 1960s as a
further development of structuralism, which is a theory in linguistics associated
primarily with the writings of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. Hence,
Chapter 2 · Theoretical Influences and Recent Directions
2
Consequently, Piers Blaikie as a social scientist proposed an approach to understanding environmental problems by, on the one hand, problematizing the quality
and uncertainty of scientific data, and on the other hand, insisting that the production, interpretation and use of environmental data are inherently political (Rigg
2006; Simon 2008).
In fact, Blaikie’s two classics in political ecology (Blaikie 1985; Blaikie and
Brookfield 1987) have inspired a whole stream of political ecology scholarship that
engages with ecology and natural science, but without making a priori judgements
about political-economic causation.
Despite this literature, also within political ecology itself, there has been a
debate about the place and role of ecology. In a key contribution to this debate,
Walker (2005) asks where the ecology is in political ecology and whether the field
has become ‘politics without ecology’.
In opposition to this view, Michael Watts has criticized some political ecology
for paying too close attention to natural aspects (‘ecology’) and too little attention
to ‘political’ aspects (Peet and Watts 1996; Watts 1997). Watts holds that this leads
to an atheoretical approach, which lacks a general theory of social change that
would explain environmental degradation. This debate may be seen to reflect different directions within political ecology between an approach engaging actively
with natural science and ecology and one focusing on social theory and ‘politics’.
In a contribution to this debate and echoing Vayda and Walters (1999), Forsyth
and Walker (2008) argue that conventional approaches to political ecology have a
priori linked environmental degradation to the impacts of global capitalism.
A critical political ecology would, however, critically and empirically examine
all environmental representations whether based on Malthusianism or a critique of
capitalism. This also implies investigating rather than assuming ‘the essentialist
link between capitalism and environmental degradation’ that often is found in the
development literature (Forsyth 2003). Critical political ecologies would combine
deconstructions of narratives with a realist belief in science as a means to achieve
more accurate descriptions and understandings of environmental realities. Such
combinations of realist and constructivist positions are referred to as a critical
realist position (see 7 Chap. 1). According to Forsyth (2001), critical realism seeks
to understand ecological change through a combination of epistemological scepticism and ontological realism.
Blaikie (1999), however, points out that political ecological critiques of claims
of degradation in fact owe more to realist science than to constructionism. Hence,
critical political ecology has to a large extent been based on realist investigations to
identify environmental change and its causes.
2.3 Poststructuralism
In political ecology, Michel Foucault (1926–1984) has been the most influential
poststructuralist thinker. Poststructuralism emerged in France in the 1960s as a
further development of structuralism, which is a theory in linguistics associated
primarily with the writings of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. Hence,
Chapter 2 · Theoretical Influences and Recent Directions