60
state land ownership, and by being selective about what institutions represent ‘the state’, the farmers used their upward accountability to produce
downward accountability in terms of recognition of their rights. The farmers exploited the separation (or multi-location) of powers in their attempt
to gain a new visibility.
The power to define subjectivity—to define it for oneself or to impose
it on others—is essential in any relation of accountability, because it defines
actors’ visibility and, consequently, the possible fields of engagement and
contracts of recognition. The Ministry of Forestry and the State Forest
Corporation had been long established as the consequential authorities
holding the power to define who is entitled and who is a thief. Yet, the
active re-orientation by the farmers re-drew the map of mutual recognition. To be sure, this relied on people’s capacity and political space to recast themselves as responsible citizens and rights subjects rather than
passively being defined as subversive squatters and enemies of the state.
Actors have different capacities to engage in the field of politics.
However, the field itself is a result of engagement, not only by the powerful but also by those who resist and want change. This desire for change—
expressed through local politics of land—may, in E.P. Thompson’s words
(1963: 12), be foolhardy. But the desire for change defines agency and is
hardly inconsequential for the relations between people and institutions.
referenceS
Arendt, H. (1973 [1951]). The origins of totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt
Brace Janovich.
Fox, J. (2018). The political construction of accountability keywords. IDS Bulletin,
49(2), 65–80.
Fraser, N. (2001). Recognition without ethics? Theory, Culture and Society,
18(2–3), 21–42.
Hein, J. I. (2018). Political ecology of REDD+ in Indonesia: Agrarian conflicts and
forest carbon. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Honneth, A. (1996). The struggle for recognition. The moral grammar of social
conflict. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ibsen, H. (1882). En Folkefiende [An Enemy of the People]. Oslo: Gyldendal.
Latour, B. (2009). The making of law: An ethnography of the Conseil d’Etat.
Cambridge: Polity.
Locke, J. (1980 [1689]). Two treatises of government. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
C. LUND
state land ownership, and by being selective about what institutions represent ‘the state’, the farmers used their upward accountability to produce
downward accountability in terms of recognition of their rights. The farmers exploited the separation (or multi-location) of powers in their attempt
to gain a new visibility.
The power to define subjectivity—to define it for oneself or to impose
it on others—is essential in any relation of accountability, because it defines
actors’ visibility and, consequently, the possible fields of engagement and
contracts of recognition. The Ministry of Forestry and the State Forest
Corporation had been long established as the consequential authorities
holding the power to define who is entitled and who is a thief. Yet, the
active re-orientation by the farmers re-drew the map of mutual recognition. To be sure, this relied on people’s capacity and political space to recast themselves as responsible citizens and rights subjects rather than
passively being defined as subversive squatters and enemies of the state.
Actors have different capacities to engage in the field of politics.
However, the field itself is a result of engagement, not only by the powerful but also by those who resist and want change. This desire for change—
expressed through local politics of land—may, in E.P. Thompson’s words
(1963: 12), be foolhardy. But the desire for change defines agency and is
hardly inconsequential for the relations between people and institutions.
referenceS
Arendt, H. (1973 [1951]). The origins of totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt
Brace Janovich.
Fox, J. (2018). The political construction of accountability keywords. IDS Bulletin,
49(2), 65–80.
Fraser, N. (2001). Recognition without ethics? Theory, Culture and Society,
18(2–3), 21–42.
Hein, J. I. (2018). Political ecology of REDD+ in Indonesia: Agrarian conflicts and
forest carbon. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Honneth, A. (1996). The struggle for recognition. The moral grammar of social
conflict. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ibsen, H. (1882). En Folkefiende [An Enemy of the People]. Oslo: Gyldendal.
Latour, B. (2009). The making of law: An ethnography of the Conseil d’Etat.
Cambridge: Polity.
Locke, J. (1980 [1689]). Two treatises of government. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
C. LUND