Advertisement

Reimagining Extractivism: Insights from Spatial Theory

  • Facundo MartínEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Development, Justice and Citizenship book series (SIID)

Abstract

This chapter explores the spatial dynamics of extractivism beyond a state-centred analysis based on the dichotomy between resource-dependent and industrialised societies. Its aim is twofold: to outline the analytical biases and spatial omissions that the widespread Latin American literature on extractivism presents, and to lay the foundations for a framework that focuses on the significance of spatial categories for politico-ecological research on extractivism. Embedded in the field of political ecology as well as critical space theory, I aim to bring the scholarly imagination back to the task of exploring analytical categories in order to boost empirical research on the spatiality of extractivism and to gain a better understanding of the contentious politics of extractivism.

Keywords

Political Ecology Spatial Strategy Political Geography Sovereign Power Bare Life 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Acosta, A. (2009). La maldición de la abundancia. Quito: Ediciones Abya Yala.Google Scholar
  2. Acosta, A. (2012). El retorno del Estado. Primeros pasos postneoliberales, más no postcapitalistas. La Tendencia 13, 62–72.Google Scholar
  3. Acosta, A. (2013). Beyond development. Alternative visions from Latin America (pp. 61–86). Berlin: Transnational Institute / Rosa Luxemburg Foundation.Google Scholar
  4. Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: el poder soberano y la vida nuda, I. Valencia: Pre-Textos.Google Scholar
  5. Agamben, G. (2003). Estado de excepción. Homo sacer II, 1. Valencia: Pre-Textos.Google Scholar
  6. Agnew, J. (1994). The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of International Political Economy, 1(1), 53–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Agnew, J. (2005). Sovereign regimes: Territoriality and State authority in contemporary world politics. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 95(2), 437–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Agnew, J., & Oslender, U. (2010). Territorialidades superpuestas, soberanía en disputa: lecciones empíricas desde América Latina. Tabula Rasa, 13, 191–213.Google Scholar
  9. Alimonda, H. (Ed.) (2011). La naturaleza colonizada. Ecología política y minería en América Latin. Buenos Aires: CLACSO.Google Scholar
  10. Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London/New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  11. Brenner, N., & Elden, S. (2009). Henri Lefebvre on state, space, territory. International Political Sociology, 3, 353–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bridge, G. (2001). Resource triumphalism: Postindustrial narratives of primary commodity production. Environment and Planning A, 33(12), 2149–2173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bridge, G. (2014). Resource geographies II: The resource-state nexus. Progress in Human Geography, 38(1), 118–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burchardt, H.-J. (2014). Logros y contradicciones del extractivismo. Bases para una fundamentación empírica y analítica, Revista Nueva Sociedad.Google Scholar
  15. Burchardt, H.-J., & Dietz, K. (2014). (Neo-)extractivism – A new challenge for development theory from Latin America. Third World Quarterly, 35(3), 468–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cajigas Rotundo, J. C. (2007). La biocolonialidad del poder. Amazonía, biodiversidad y ecocapitalismo. In S. Castro-Gómez & R. Grosfoguel (Eds.), El giro decolonial. Reflexiones para una diversidad epistémica más allá del capitalismo global (pp. 169–193). Bogotá: Iesco-Pensar-Siglo del Hombre Editores.Google Scholar
  17. Campisi, C. (2008). Reflections on the “Pascua Lama Conflict” in Chile: Corporate Social Responsibility and the ‘Nature’ of the Other, Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l`obtention du grade Maîtrise en sciences en Anthropologie, Université de Montreal.Google Scholar
  18. CEPAL (2014). Pactos para la Igualdad. Hacia un futuro sostenible. http://www.cepal.org/publicaciones/xml/7/52307/2014-SES35_Pactos_para_la_igualdad.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2014.
  19. Debrix, F. (2015). Topologies of vulnerability and the proliferation of camp life. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 33(3), 444–459.Google Scholar
  20. di Risio, D., Gavaldà, M., Pérez Roig, D., & Scandizzo, H. (2012). Zonas de Sacrificio. Impactos de la industria hidrocarburífera en Salta y Norpatagonia. Neuquén: Observatorio Petrolero Sur-América Libre.Google Scholar
  21. Dietz, K., Engels, B., & Pye, O. (2015). Territoriality, scale and networks: The spatial dynamics of agrofuels. In K. Dietz et al. (Eds.), The political ecology of agrofuels (pp. 34–52). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Dodds, K., & Benwell, M. C. (2010). More unfinished business: The Falklands/Malvinas, maritime claims, and the spectre of oil in the South Atlantic. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28, 571–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Emel, J., Huber, M., & Makene, M. (2011). Extracting sovereignty: Capital, territory, and gold mining in Tanzania. Political Geography, 30, 70–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. (1984 [1967]). Des espaces autres, Architecture, Mouvement, Continuité (trans: Blitstein, P. & Lima, T.). N° 5, http://yoochel.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/foucalt_de-los-espacios-otros.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2015.
  25. Giaccaria, P., & Minca, C. (2011). Topographies/topologies of the camp: Auschwitz as a spatial threshold. Political Geography, 30(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Göbel, B. (2014). La minería de litio en Atacama: Disputas sociales alrededor de un nuevo mineral estarégico. In B. Göbel & A. Ulloa (Eds.), Extractivismo minero en Colombia y América Latina (pp. 167–196). Bogotá/Berlin: Universidad Nacional de Colombia & Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut.Google Scholar
  27. Gregory, D. (2006). The black flag: Guantánamo Bay and the space of exception. Geografiska Annaler, 88 B(4), 405–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gudynas, E. (2009). Dies tesis urgentes sobre el nuevo extractivismo. Contextos y demandas bajo el progresismo sudamericano actual. http://extractivismo.com/documentos/capitulos/GudynasExtractivismoSociedadDesarrollo09.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2015.
  29. Gudynas, E. (2010). The new extractivism of the 21st century: Ten urgent theses about extractivism in relation to current South American progressivism. Americas Program Report. Washington, DC: Center for International Policy, January 21. www.americaspolicy.org. Accessed 6 Apr 2016.
  30. Gudynas, E. (2012). Estado compensador y nuevos extractivismos. Las ambivalencias del progresismo sudamericano. Nueva Sociedad 237, 128–146.Google Scholar
  31. Gudynas, E. (2013). El extractivista más grande del continente: Brasil. http://www.alainet.org/es/active/63900. Accessed 16 Jan 2016.
  32. Harvey, D. (1982). The limits to capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Harvey, D. (1989). The urban experience. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  34. Harvey, D. (2001). Spaces of capital. Towards a critical geography. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Hetherington, K. (1997). The badlands of modernity: Heterotopia and social ordering. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hogenboom, B. (2012). Depoliticized and repoliticized minerals in Latin America. Journal of Developing Societies, 28(2), 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hogenboom, B., Baud, M., & de Castro, F. (2015) [Coord.] Gobernanza ambiental en América Latina. Buenos Aires: CLACSO.Google Scholar
  38. Jessop, B. (2006). Spatial fixes, temporal fixes and spatio-temporal fixes. In N. Castree & D. Gregory (Eds.), David Harvey: A critical reader (pp. 142–166). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jessop, B., Brenner, N., & Jones, M. (2008). Theorizing sociospatial relations. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26, 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kaplan, A. (2005). Where is Guantanamo? American Quarterly, 57(3), 831–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lefebvre, H. (1976–1978). De L’État (Four Volumes), Paris: UGE.Google Scholar
  42. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Lefebvre, H. (2009). Space: Social product and use value. In N. Brenner & S. Elden (Eds.), State, space, world. Selected essays. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  44. Machado Aráoz, H. (2015). Ecología política del ‘extractivismo. Clase N°10 Curso Ecología Política Latinoamericana. Buenos Aires: Campus CLACSO Mimeo.Google Scholar
  45. Martín, D. (2015). From spaces of exception to ‘campscapes’: Palestinian refugee camps and informal settlements in Beirut. Political Geography, 44, 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Martín, F., & Larsimont, R. (2016 forthcoming). Es posible una ecología cosmo-política. Notas hacia la desregionalización de las ecologías políticas. POLIS Revista Latinoamericana 45 (Accepted 8 Jan 2016).Google Scholar
  47. Mayer, M. (2008). To what end do we theorize sociospatial relations? Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26(3), 414–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mezzadra, S., & Gago, V. (2015). Para una crítica de las operaciones extractivas del capital. Patrón de acumulación y luchas sociales en el tiempo de la financiarización. Revista Nueva Sociedad, No. 255, enero-febrero de 2015, ISSN: 0251-3552. www.nuso.org. Accessed 3 Mar 2016.
  49. Mitchell, K. (2006). Geographies of identity: The new exceptionalism. Progress in Human Geography, 30(1), 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moreno, C. (2015). O Brasil made in China. Para pensar as reconfiguraçoes do capitalismo contemporaneo. Sao Paulo: Fundaçao Rosa Luxemburgo.Google Scholar
  51. Mountz, A. (2013). Political geography I: Reconfiguring geographies of sovereignty. Progress in Human Geography, 37(6), 829–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mountz, A. (2015). Political geography II: Islands and archipelagos. Progress in Human Geography, 39(5), 636–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ong, A. (2006). Neoliberalism as exception: Mutations in sovereignty and citizenship. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Orduna, J. (2008). Ecofascistas. Las internacionales ecologístas y las soberanías nacionales. Buenos Aires: Planeta.Google Scholar
  55. Peet, R., & Watts, M. (2004). Liberation ecologies. Environment, development, social movements. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Piazzini Suárez, C. E. (2008). El tiempo situado: las temporalidades después del giro espacial. In D. H. Gómez & C. E. P. Suárez (Eds.), (Des)territorialidades y (No)lugares. Procesos de configuración y transformación social del espacio (pp. 55–73). Medellín: Universidad de Antioquia.Google Scholar
  57. Pratt, G. (2005). Abandoned women and spaces of exception. Antipode, 37(5), 1052–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Robbins, P. (2004). Political ecology. A critical introduction. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  59. Roca, Z., Claval, P., & Agnew, J. (2011). Landscapes, identities and development. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  60. Smith, N. (1984). Uneven development. Nature, capital and the production of space. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  61. Soja, E. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Svampa, M. (2012). Consenso de los Commodities, Giro Ecoterritorial y Pensamiento crítico en América Latina, Revista OSAL Observatorio Social de América Latina, XIII(32). http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/clacso/osal/20120927103642/OSAL32.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2014.
  63. Svampa, M. (2013), «Consenso de los Commodities» y lenguajes de valoración en América Latina en Revista Nueva Sociedad No. 244. http://www.nuso.org/upload/articulos/3926_1.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2014.
  64. Sylvester, C. (2006). Bare life as a development/postcolonial problematic. Geographical Journal, 172(1), 66–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yeh, E. (2012). Transnational environmentalism and entanglements of sovereignty: The tiger campaign across the Himalayas. Political Geography, 31, 408–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyNational University of CuyoMendozaArgentina

Personalised recommendations