Advertisement

Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 983–994 | Cite as

Dualisms shaping human-nature relations: discovering the multiple meanings of social-ecological change in Wayanad

  • Isabelle Kunze
Article

Abstract

This paper reflects on the impacts of agrarian change and social reorganisation on gender-nature relations through the lens of an indigenous group named the Kuruma in South India. Building upon recent work of feminist political ecology, I uncover a number of dualisms attached to the gender-nature nexus and put forward that gender roles are constituted by social relations which need to be analysed with regard to the transformative potential of gender-nature relations. Three main themes are at the centre of the empirical inquiry: gender subjectivities, rural off-farm employment and the human-nature nexus. I seek to show that, first, the production of gendered subjectivities cannot be simplified through essentialist assumptions that romanticise women’s relationships with nature; second, off-farm employment strategies both reinforce the social hierarchy in gender and contradict the Kuruma’s moral economies; and, finally, environmental and agrarian change redefine the use of agrobiodiversity and are related to ideas on progressive versus nonprogressive cultivation practices. The research is informed by qualitative research methods and offers a conceptual approach to the deconstruction of gender-nature relations from a poststructuralist feminist perspective.

Keywords

Agrarian change Feminist political ecology Kerala 

References

  1. Agarwal, B. 1992. The gender and environment debate: Lessons from India. Feminist Studies 18(1): 119–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anil Kumar, N.P., G. Gopi, and P. Prajeesh. 2010. Genetic erosion and degradation of ecosystem services in wetland rice fields: A case study from Western Ghats, India. In Agriculture, biodiversity and markets: Livelihoods and agroecology in comparative perspective, ed. S. Lockie, and D. Carpenter, 137–153. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  3. Arun, S. 2012. ‘We are Farmers too’: Agrarian change and gendered livelihoods in Kerala, South India. Journal of Gender Studies 21(3): 271–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauriedl, S. 2010. Erkenntnisse der Geschlechterforschung für eine erweiterte sozialwissenschaftliche Klimaforschung. In Geschlechterverhältnisse, Raumstrukturen, Ortsbeziehungen: Erkundungen von Vielfalt und Differenz im spatial turn, ed. S. Bauriedl, M. Schier, and A. Strüver, 194–216. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.Google Scholar
  5. Betz, L., I. Kunze, P. Prajeesh, T.R. Suma, and M. Padmanabhan. 2014. The social–ecological web: A bridging concept for transdisciplinary research. Current Science 10(4): 572–579.Google Scholar
  6. Bhavnani, K.-K., J. Foran, P.A. Kurian, and D. Munshi (eds.). 2003. Feminist futures: Reimagining women, culture and development. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  7. Brocheux, P. 1983. Moral economy or political economy? The peasants are always rational. The Journal of Asian Studies 42(4): 791–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brodt, S.B. 1999. Interactions of formal and informal knowledge systems in village-based tree management in central India. Agriculture and Human Values 16(4): 355–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bryman, A. 2008. Social research methods, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chakrapani, C., and S. Vijaya Kumar (eds.). 1994. Changing status and role of women in Indian society. New Delhi: MD Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Crang, M. 2003. Qualitative methods: Touchy, feely, look-see? Progress in Human Geography 27(4): 494–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Devika, J., and B.V. Thampi. 2007. Between ‘Empowerment’ and ‘Liberation’: The Kudumbashree initiative in Kerala. Indian Journal of Gender Studies 14(1): 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dhas, A. C. 2009. Agricultural crisis in India: The root cause and consequences. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18930/. Accessed 8 March 2015.
  14. Elmhirst, R., and B. Resurreccion (eds.). 2008. Gender and natural resource management. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  15. Elmhirst, R. 2011. Introducing new feminist political ecologies. Geoforum 42(2): 129–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elmhirst, R. 2015. Feminist political ecology. In The Routledge handbook of gender and development, eds. A. Coles, L. Gray and J. Momsen, 58–66. Routledge handbooks. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Evers, H.-D., and H. Schrader. 1994. The moral economy of trade: Ethnicity and developing markets. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Finnis, E. 2007. The political ecology of dietary transitions: Changing production and consumption patterns in the Kolli Hills, India. Agriculture and Human Values 24(3): 343–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Government of India. 2013. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005. http://nrega.nic.in. Accessed 8 March 2015.
  20. Gururani, S. 2002. Construction of third world women’s knowledge in the development discourse. International Social Sciences Journal 54(173): 313–323.Google Scholar
  21. Haque, T. 2011. Socio-economic impact of implementation of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in India. Social Change 41(3): 445–471. doi: 10.1177/004908571104100307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jarosz, L. 2000. Understanding agri-food networks as social relations. Agriculture and Human Values 17(3): 279–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jewitt, S. 2000. Unequal knowledges in Jharkhand, India: De-romanticizing women’s agroecological expertise. Development and Change 31(5): 961–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jose, M., and M. Padmanabhan. 2015. Dynamics of agricultural land use change in Kerala: A policy and social-ecological perspective. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 14(3): 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kelkar, M. 2007. Local knowledge and natural resource management: A gender perspective. Indian Journal of Gender Studies 14(2): 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krishna, S. (ed.). 1998. Gender and biodiversity management. Gender dimensions in biodiversity management. Delhi: Konark.Google Scholar
  27. Krishna, S. 2007. feminist perspectives and the struggle to transform the disciplines: Report of the IAWS Southern Regional Workshop. Indian Journal of Gender Studies 14(3): 499–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kunze, I., and J. Momsen. 2015. Exploring gendered rural spaces of agrobiodiversity management—A case study from Kerala, India. In The Routledge handbook of gender and development, eds. A. Coles, L. Gray and J. Momsen, 106–116. Routledge handbooks. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Lerche, J. 2011. Agrarian crisis and agrarian questions in India. Review essay. Journal of Agrarian Change 11(1): 104–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mies, M., and V. Shiva. 1998. Ecofeminism. Melbourne: Spinifex Press.Google Scholar
  31. Momsen, J. 2009. Gender and development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Moss, P. (ed.). 2002. Feminist geography in practice: Research and methods. Malden: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  33. MSSRF—The M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation. 2003. Farmers’ rights and biodiversity: A gender and community perspective. Chennai: MSSRF.Google Scholar
  34. Muenster, D. 2012. Farmers’ suicides and the state in India: Conceptual and ethnographic notes from Wayanad, Kerala. Contributions to Indian Sociology 46(1–2): 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nagabhatla, N., and N.P. Anil Kumar. 2013. Developing a joint understanding of agrobiodiversity and land-use change. In Cultivate diversity! A handbook on transdisciplinary approaches to agrobiodiversity research, ed. A. Christinck, and M. Padmanabhan, 27–51. Weikersheim: Margraf Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Narasimha Reddy, D., and S. Mishra. 2009. Agrarian crisis in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Nightingale, A.J. 2012. The embodiment of nature: Fishing, emotion, and the politics of environmental values. In Human-environment relations: Transformative values in theory and practice, ed. E. Brady, and P. Phemister, 135–147. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Quisumbing, A.R., D. Rubin, C. Manfre, E. Waithanji, M. van den Bold, D. Olney, N. Johnson, and R. Meinzen-Dick. 2015. Gender, assets, and market-oriented agriculture: learning from high-value crop and livestock projects in Africa and Asia. Agriculture and Human Values 32(4): 705–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pellissery, S., and S.K. Jalan. 2011. Towards transformative social protection: A gendered analysis of the employment guarantee act of India (MGNREGA). Gender & Development 19(2): 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perkins, J.H. 1993. Cuba, Mexico, and India: Technical and social changes in agriculture during political economic crisis. Agriculture and Human Values 10(3): 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Plumwood, V. 1993. Feminism and the mastery of nature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Rath, G.C. (ed.). 2006. Tribal development in India: The contemporary debate. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Rocheleau, D., B. Thomas-Slayer, and E. Wangari (eds.). 1996. Feminist political ecology: Global issues and local experiences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Rometsch, J., and M. Padmanabhan. 2013. Vandana Shiva: Kämpferin für das, Gute Leben‘oder rückwärtsgewandte Konservative? Ariadne 64: 40–47.Google Scholar
  45. Scott, J.C. 1976. The moral economy of the peasant: Rebellion and subsistence in Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Seager, J. 1993. Earth follies: Feminism, politics and the environment. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  47. Shiva, V. 1988. Staying alive: Women, ecology and survival in India. New Delhi: Kali for Women.Google Scholar
  48. Thadathil, M.S., and V. Mohandas. 2012. Impact of MGNREGS on labour supply to agricultural sector of Wayanad District in Kerala. Agricultural Economics Research Review 25(1): 151–155.Google Scholar
  49. Valdivia, C., and J. Gilles. 2001. Gender and resource management: Households and groups, strategies and transitions. Agriculture and Human Values 18(1): 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Williams, G., and E. Mawdsley. 2006. India’s evolving political ecologies. In Colonial and post-colonial geographies of India, ed. S. Raju, M. Satish Kumar, and S. Corbridge, 261–278. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Winchester, H.P.M. 2000. Qualitative research and its place in human geography. In Qualitative research methods in human geography, ed. I. Hay, 1–22. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Comparative Development and Cultural Studies - Southeast AsiaUniversity of PassauLangenfeldGermany

Personalised recommendations