Call
for Papers Political Ecology Network (POLLEN) bi-annual conference, Oslo, 20–22
June 2018
Mobilization against
resource extraction and political (re)actions ‘from above’
Organizers: Judith Verweijen (Ghent University) &
Alexander Dunlap (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
Recent scholarship on extractivist
projects and land grabbing highlights the need to look beyond ‘resistance’ and study
the entire spectrum of ‘political reactions “from below”’ (Li, 2011; Borras
& Franco, 2013; Hall et al., 2015). To understand this spectrum, however, it
is crucial to also study political (re)actions ‘from above’ (Geenen &
Verweijen, 2017). This means examining the ways in which governments, extractive
companies and other public and private actors try to influence, manage and
engineer political reactions ‘from below’. While relational approaches to
social mobilization emphasize the need to study ‘counter-mobilization’ (Tarrow,
1994; Diani & McAdam, 2003), the latter has been unevenly examined in relation
to recent waves of mobilization against resource extraction and land grabbing,
including ‘green grabbing’ (Fairhead et al., 2012). In particular, it is not
always studied how (re)actions ‘from above’ and ‘from below’ mutually shape
each other. Furthermore, few studies address the entire spectrum of political (re)actions ‘from above’, which
covers variegated efforts not only to ‘manage’ dissent and ‘manufacture’ consent
(Bernays, 1947; Herman & Chomsky, 1989), but also to prevent opposition to extractive
interventions from emerging in the first place.
Research into political
reactions ‘from above’ attempts to understand the strategies and tactics employed
by governments, corporations and allied elites to make their operations politically
and socially feasible. These strategies and techniques do not only relate to overtly
violent police, military and paramilitary action (Lasslett, 2014; Dunlap, 2017a;
Verweijen, 2017), but also include subtle forms of coercion such as spying on activists
and creating informant networks (Churchill & Vander Wall, 2002[1984]; Williams,
2007; Lubbers, 2012; Williams et al., 2013). Furthermore, they encompass multipronged
efforts to ‘divide and conquer’ opposition, such as through the co-optation of
local politicians, elites and community leaders (Welker, 2014; Brock &
Dunlap, forthcoming); the creation of astroturf groups or proxy NGOs, including
online communities (Austin, 2002; Kraemer et al., 2013; Bsumek et al., 2014);
and harnessing journalists and social scientific knowledge production,
including to understand ‘local opinion’ and the ‘human terrain’ (Dinan &
Miller, 2007; Price, 2011, 2014; Dunlap, 2017a) Political (re)actions from
above also incorporate initiatives to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of ‘target
populations’, for instance, through Public Relations campaigns and Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) activities to ‘pacify’ dissent and legitimize land
control and extractive projects (Rogers, 2012; McQueen, 2015; Brock &
Dunlap, forthcoming).
This broad repertoire
indicates that the study of political (re)actions ‘from above’ requires
interdisciplinary and multi-sited research efforts, focusing on, inter alia,
corporate activities in boardrooms and informal settings; online propaganda and
discussions; the actions of security actors in headquarters and around
extractive projects; and the practices of protest groups, who are the primary ‘target’
of counter-mobilization. This research endeavor is of both theoretical and
practical importance, helping to understand the evolution and effects of mobilization
against extractivist projects, in particular in the face of the growing convergence
of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency techniques employed across different
settings to ‘engineer’ the political terrain (Dunlap & Fairhead, 2014;
Dunlap, 2017a; Brown et al., 2017).
To enrich the study of
political reactions ‘from above’ in relation to extractivist projects and land
grabbing—‘green’ or otherwise—conceptually, theoretically and empirically, we
invite contributions covering one or more of the themes elaborated below, or
other dimensions of the problematic of corporate and state-led counter-mobilization:
·
The
role of CSR, certification processes and Free, Prior and Informed Consent
within processes of the legitimization of extractive operations, ‘social
pacification’, and the pre-emption and management of dissent (McQueen, 2015; Dunlap,
2017b)
·
The
neoliberalization of counter-mobilization; for instance, the commercialization
of militarized approaches (cf. Marijnen & Verweijen, 2016) or the role of
‘spectacle’ (cf. Igoe et al., 2010) and entertainment in manufacturing consent,
including mining tourism or other dimensions of the ‘ecotourism-extraction
nexus’ (Büscher & Davidov, 2013)
·
Mapping
elite networks and (security) assemblages around extractive industries and
projects, while examining the formal and informal ways in which different
private, public and extra-judicial actors liaise to undermine social movements
and protest groups (Abrahamsen & Williams, 2009; de Graaff, 2013)
·
The
securitization and militarization of counter-mobilization, including ‘corporate
counterinsurgency’ (Rosenau et al., 2009), ‘militarization beyond the battlefield’
and the transnational diffusion of repressive techniques through security
assistance and counter-terrorism programs (Dunlap, 2017b)
·
The
multifaceted approaches of extractive companies to legitimize their projects,
including through ‘greening’ (Brock & Dunlap, forthcoming) and ‘counter-framing’
(Benford & Snow, 2000) and the role of online strategies therein, such as
counter-webtivism (cf. Büscher et al., 2017)
·
The
methodological challenges of studying political reactions ‘from above’,
including researching elite practices, dealing with security risks, and reflections
on researchers’ positionality and relations to activists, corporate and state
actors (Ballard & Banks, 2003; Price, 2011; Welker, 2016)
Please
send abstracts of no more than 300 words to both Alexander Dunlap ([log in to unmask])
and Judith Verweijen ([log in to unmask]) before
1 December 2017. Applicants will be
notified whether their paper has been accepted or not by 5 December 2017.
We
encourage (but do not oblige) the submission of full papers before the
conference, as we intend to select papers for a special issue on political
reactions ‘from above’ in relation to extractivist projects and land grabbing. If
you are not able to attend the conference, but are interested in participating
in the special issue, do not hesitate to get in touch as well.
References
Abrahamsen, R. & Williams, M. C. (2009) Security
beyond the state: Global security assemblages in
international
politics. International
Political Sociology 3(1):
1–17.
Austin, A. (2002)
Advancing accumulation and managing its discontents: The US antienvironmental
countermovement. Sociological Spectrum 22: 71–105.
Ballard, C. & Banks,
G. (2003) Resource wars: The anthropology of mining. Annual Review of Anthropology 32: 287–313.
Benford, R. D.
& Snow, D. A. (2000) Framing processes and social movements: An overview an
assessment. Annual
review of sociology 26(1): 611–639.
Bernays, E. (1947) The engineering of consent.
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 250:
113–120.
Borras, S.M. & Franco, J. (2013) Global
land grabbing and political reactions ‘from below’. Third World Quarterly
34: 1723–1747.
Brock, A. & Dunlap, A. (forthcoming)
Normalising corporate counterinsurgency: Engineering consent, managing
resistance and greening destruction around the Hambach coal mine and beyond. Political
Geography.
Brown, A., Parrish, W. & Speri, A.
(2017) Leaked Documents Reveal Counterterrorism Tactics Used at Standing
Rock to "Defeat Pipeline Insurgencies." Available at: https://theintercept.com/2017/05/27/leaked-documents-reveal-security-firms-counterterrorism-tactics-at-standing-rock-to-defeat-pipeline-insurgencies/
Bsumek, P. K., Schneider, J., Schwarze, S.,
& Peeples, J. (2014). Corporate ventriloquism: Corporate advocacy, the coal
industry, and the appropriation of voice. In: Peeples, J. & Depoe, S. (eds)
Voice and Environmental Communication, Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan, 21–43.
Büscher, B.
& Davidov, V. (2013) The Ecotourism-Extraction Nexus: Political Economies
and Rural Realities of (Un)comfortable Bedfellows. Oxon and New York:
Routledge.
Büscher, B., Koot,
S., & Nelson, I. L. (2017) Introduction. Nature 2.0: New media, online
activism and the cyberpolitics of environmental conservation. Geoforum 79: 111–113.
Churchill, W., & Vander Wall, J. (2002
[1984]) Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret Wars against the Black
Panther Party and the American Indian Movement. Cambridge: South End Press.
de Graaff N.A. (2013) Towards
a Hybrid Global Energy Order: State-owned Oil Companies, Corporate Elite
Networks and Governance (Phd Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
Diani, M. &
McAdam, D. (2003) Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Dinan, W. & Miller, D. (2007) Thinker,
Faker, Spinner, Spy: Corporate PR and the Assault on Democracy. London:
Pluto Press.
Dunlap, A. (2017a.) Counterinsurgency for wind
energy: The Bíi Hioxo wind park in Juchitán,
Mexico.
Journal of Peasant Studies, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1259221
Dunlap, A. (2017b) ‘A bureaucratic trap’: Free, prior
and informed consent (FPIC) and wind energy
development
in Juchitán, Mexico. Capitalism Nature Socialism, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2017.1334219
Dunlap, A., & Fairhead,
J. (2014) The militarisation and marketisation of nature: An alternative lens
to ‘climate-conflict’. Geopolitics 19(4):
937–61.
Fairhead, J., Leach,
M., & Scoones, I. (2012) Green grabbing: A new appropriation of
nature? Journal of Peasant Studies 39(2), 237-261.
Geenen, S. & Verweijen J. (2017) Explaining fragmented
and fluid mobilization in gold mining concessions in eastern Democratic
Republic of the Congo. The Extractive Industries and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2017.07.006
Hall, R., Edelman,
M., Borras Jr, S. M., Scoones, I., White, B. & Wolford, W. (2015) Resistance,
acquiescence or incorporation? An introduction to land grabbing and political
reactions ‘from below’. Journal of Peasant Studies 42(3-4): 467–488.
Herman, E.S. & Chomsky, N. (2010) Manufacturing
Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Random House.
Igoe, J., Neves, K. & Brockington, D.
(2010) A spectacular eco-tour around the historic bloc: Theorising the
convergence of biodiversity conservation and capitalist expansion. Antipode
42: 486–512.
Kirsch, S. (2014) Mining Capitalism: The Relationship Between Corporations and
Their Critics.
Oakland: University of California Press.
Kraemer, R., Whiteman, G. & Banerjee,
B. (2013) Conflict and astroturfing in Niyamgiri: The importance of national
advocacy networks in anti-corporate social movements. Organization Studies 34 (5-6): 823–852.
Lasslett K. (2014) State Crime on the Margins
of Empire: Rio Tinto, the War on Bougainville and Resistance to Mining. London:
Pluto Press.
Li, T.M. (2011) Centering labor in the land
grab debate. Journal of Peasant Studies 38: 281–298.
Lubbers E. (2012) Secret Manoeuvres in
the Dark: Corporate and Policy Spying on Activists. London: Pluto Press.
Marijnen, E. & Verweijen, J. (2016)
Selling green militarization: The discursive (re) production of militarized
conservation in the Virunga National Park, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Geoforum
75: 274–285.
McQueen, D. (2015) CSR and new battle lines
in online PR war: A case study of the energy sector and its discontents. In
Adi, A, Grigore, G., & Crowther, D. (eds) Corporate Social Responsibility
in the Digital Age. Bingley: Emerald Group, 99–125.
Price, D.H. (2011) Weaponizing
Anthropology: Social Science in Service of the Militarized State. Oakland:
AK Press/Counterpunch Books.
Price, D.H. (2014) Counterinsurgency by
other names: Complicating humanitarian applied anthropology in current, former,
and future war zones. Human Organization 73(2): 95–105.
Rogers, D. (2012) The
materiality of the corporation: Oil, gas, and corporate social technologies in
the remaking of a Russian region. American
Ethnologist 39 (2): 284–96.
Rosenau W, Chalk P, McPherson R, et al.
(2009) Corporations and Counterinsurgency. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
National Security Research Division.
Tarrow, S. (1994) Power in Movement: Social Movements,
Collective Action and Mass Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeraity Press
Verweijen, J.
(2017) Luddites in the Congo? Analyzing violent responses to
the expansion of industrial mining amidst militarization. City http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2017.1331567
Welker, M. (2014) Enacting
the Corporation: An American Mining Firm in Post-authoritarian Indonesia.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Welker, M. (2016). Notes
on the difficulty of studying the corporation. Seattle
University Law
Review 39: 397–422.
Williams K. (2007 [2004]) Our Enemies in
Blue: Police and Power in America.
Cambridge: South End Press.
Williams K., Munger W. & Messersmith-Glavin
L. (2013) Life During Wartime: Resisting
Counterinsurgency. Edinburgh: AK Press.
Latest publications
On social mobilization in industrial gold mining concessions in eastern DRC, and the interplay with armed mobilization, on relations between UN peacekeepers and the Congolese army, and on the role of cattle in conflicts and violence in eastern DRC