Theorizing landscape Roderick P. Neumann Florida International University, USA Abstract In this last of three reports exploring the incorporation of human geography theory within political ecology, I focus on landscape. I begin by surveying recent work on landscape in human geography, which has increasingly stressed non-representational approaches, and then explore how landscape has been treated in political ecology. I found that political ecology shares with human geography more generally many of the same critical responses to the representational landscape approaches of the 1980s new cultural geography. Although shifts in approaches to landscape in political ecology and human geography more broadly have often paralleled one another, this has not been an outcome of sustained interaction between the fields. I refer to work in anthropology to illustrate the theoretical and empirical potentialities of a more direct and explicit conversation between political ecology and landscape studies in human geography. Keywords colonial narrative, contested nature, non-representational landscape, representational landscape, socio- ecological transformation I Introduction In this series of reports I have been assessing the progress of theory construction in political ecol- ogy through an examination of its productive tension with human geography (Zimmerer and Bassett, 2003: 2). My focus has been on recent retheorizations of key human geography con- cepts that are critical to many political ecology studies, such as scale, region, place, and land- scape. I am asking: to what degree does new work in political ecology reflect, challenge, or incorporate theoretical innovations in human geography? The first and second reports addressed this question by examining the theori- zation of scale and region, respectively, in polit- ical ecology. In this third and final contribution I focus on the concept of landscape. Unlike scale or region, Blaikie and Brook- field did not explicitly invoke the concept of landscape in establishing a basis for theory construction in political ecology (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987: xxi). Nevertheless, one can recognize significant overlap in theory and inquiry between the concerns of political ecol- ogy and landscape studies, especially as the lat- ter was reinterpreted and retheorized in some strains of the new cultural geography (NCG) of the 1980s (Cosgrove, 1983). Contested prop- erty rights, struggles over meaning, land use change, and the cultural production of nature under capitalism are some of the analytical foci shared by critical landscape studies and political ecology. In addition, attention to history and Corresponding author: Department of Global and Sociocultural Studies, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, USA Email: neumannr@fiu.edu Progress in Human Geography 35(6) 843850 The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav 10.1177/0309132510390870 phg.sagepub.com narrative are very nearly inherent in the analyses of both landscape studies and political ecology (Matless, 2003; Neumann, 2005). Consequently, and in retrospect, it was inevitable that landscape would emerge as a key concept in political ecol- ogy, especially, but not solely, among geogra- phers. As political ecology research expanded throughthe 1990s, landscape received increasing attention, though its theoretical treatment was uneven (Batterbury and Bebbington, 1999; Carney, 1996; Fairhead and Leach, 1996; Neumann, 1998; Sluyter, 1999; Zimmerer, 1999). Before elaborating on this last observa- tion, I want to briefly examine the present state of landscape theory in human geography. Much theoretical work on landscape has been conducted since Mitchell observed in the pages of this journal that geographers seemed to be taking a break from theory (Mitchell, 2002: 386). Special issues on landscape theory have appeared in the journals Society and Space (2006) and Social and Cultural Geography (2008). The edited volume Handbook of Cul- tural Geography (Anderson et al., 2003) offered three separate essays on the particular perspec- tives [on landscape] within geography (Matless, 2003: 228). These perspectives emphasize, respectively, labor as productive of and hidden by landscapes, landscapes connections with seeing and the sense of sight, and landscape as lived, embodied, and practiced (Cosgrove, 2003: 249; Cresswell, 2003; Mitchell, 2003). Matlesss introduction to these three stresses interconnections among them, noting recurrent themes, particular problematics (Matless, 2003: 229). Other authors, however, suggest that the emergence of new approaches has produced a rupture within landscape studies. The principal fault line divides discursive, representational approaches from more recent work often labeled non-representational, building as it does on non-representational theory (NRT) (see Thrift, 2008). Some suggest that NRT has changed the terms of debate . . . over the production, mean- ing and significance of landscapes (Gareth and Metzo, 2008: 225) or that representationalism should be abandoned because it results in landscapes being rendered inert (Lorimer, 2005: 84). Rose and Wylie wondered if the advent of varied non-representational, post- human, and vitalist geographies has not made the very term, landscape, obsolete (Rose and Wylie, 2006: 475). Rose appears to reject not only the historical materialist underpinnings of much NCG, but theoretical structure altogether, arguing for a more empirical approach to land- scape (Rose, 2006: 542) and eschewing theore- tical props (Rose, 2002: 457). At other moments some of the same authors are more conciliatory toward the no-longer-new cultural geography, suggesting that thinking in terms of historical ruptures and conceptual binaries (e.g. stasis- movement, representation-practice) will not help advance landscape theory (Merriman et al., 2008). My sympathies lie with this last position. While one might conclude that there is no unified theory of landscape within geography, it is more difficult to cogently argue that the various approaches are wholly incommensurate. In a later section I will put political ecology into pro- ductive dialog with these approaches. First, I want to critically evaluate the treatment of land- scape in political ecology. II The political ecology of landscape There are many ways one might classify politi- cal ecologists engagement with landscape. It seems, however, that one can readily identify braided pathways of political-ecological inquiry that intersect with the subfield of landscape stud- ies repeatedly and at different theoretical points. Principal among these are analyses of socio- ecological transformations, investigations into the contested meanings of nature, and interroga- tions of colonial narratives. Many of these engagements offered critical responses to NCGs approach to landscape, even as they built upon it. 844 Progress in Human Geography 35(6) Driven by a central interest in socio-ecological transformations, most political ecology studies have highlighted the material aspects of landscape from multiple angles. Landscape representations produced through remote mapping technologies, for example, were shown to influence the estab- lishment of new kinds of forest landscapes and ecologies on the ground (Robbins, 2001). Approaching from a different angle, one closely associated with the traditions of cultural ecology, landscapes have been analyzed as the material result of decades of peasant labor reworking local ecologies while enmeshed in dynamic extralocal processes such as land reform, macro-economic policies, andagribusiness invest- ment (Zimmerer, 1999). Many studies have found NCGs binary framework of landscapes of production and consumption important to expla- nations of how state resource policies and capi- tal investment shifts propel such socio- ecological transformations. Here, landscapes are conceptualized as falling into two distinct cate- gories, which are linked to changes in the polit- ical economy of natural resource exploitation and conservation. Robbins and Sharp (2003), however, challenged the clear distinction between landscapes of production and consump- tion articulated in NCG. In an inspired effort to set American lawnscapes within Blaikie and Brookfields (1987) framework, they argued that the American suburban household and third world agrarian land managers are theoretical equivalents. They cogently demonstrated how household lawn managers produce the American lawnscape for public consumption and conclude production and consumption are enmeshed in the lawn and made difficult to distinguish (Robbins and Sharp, 2003: 445, 444). Others further blurred the distinction, noting that, as with landscapes of production, landscapes of consumption often turn a profit for one or more sectors of competing rural capitalisms (Walker and Fortmann, 2003: 484; see also Neumann, 1998). Nevertheless, some of the most recent political ecology works on landscape continue to find the binary framework analytically useful (Bunce, 2008; Ekers, 2009). While the materiality of landscapes has been a strong theme in political ecology, virtually all studies that have engaged the landscape concept have been drawn to NCGs focus on symbolic meanings. Many of these reveal multiple and contested meanings of nature and natural land- scapes among interested social groups. Land- scapes as contested nature, as struggles over meaning, are simultaneously struggles over social identity, belonging and exclusion, and land rights and use. Whether it is a question of climbing real estate prices and rural gentrifica- tion (Bunce, 2008; Walker and Fortmann, 2003) or state resource management and conser- vation practices (Ekers, 2009; Fairhead and Leach, 1996; Neumann, 1998), what is at stake in struggles over landscape meaning are peo- ples livelihoods in place. Contained within these explorations of symbolic meaning is a per- sistent critique of NCGs representational approach to landscape. Specifically, NCG is faulted for both narrowly focusing on dominant discourses and largely ignoring the active role of non-human forces (Batterbury, 2001; Batterbury and Bebbington, 1999; Fairhead and Leach, 1996; Zimmerer, 1999). Political ecology stud- ies are typically grounded in the spatial and temporal variability of biophysical conditions. Such studies examine both how those conditions are interpreted and understood by multiple social actors and how they alter and are altered by local knowledge and practice to produce material landscapes. As Fairhead and Leach emphasized in their West African research, local knowledge and meaning of landscape are rooted in lived history and its experience. Such experi- ential and historical issues are all too often over- looked by discourse analyses in their focus on howthings are represented (FairheadandLeach, 1996: 15). Similarly, Batterbury (2001: 441) insists that the landscape as representation view . . . needs to be combined with analysis of livelihood dynamics and everyday use. Neumann 845 Some of the most fruitful engagements of political ecology with landscape studies but- tressed by advances in postcolonial studies and enthnohistory are critical evaluations of long- lived colonial narratives about nature-society relations. At its most assertive, this approach treats colonization as a process of conflict between natives and Europeans over and through landscape (Sluyter, 2001: 415). Some of this work probes and dismantles the coloni- zers model of the world (Blaut, 1993) wherein productively occupied precolonial landscapes are symbolically and materially transformed into pristine wilderness under European colonialism (Hecht and Cockburn, 1990; Neumann, 1995; Sluyter, 1999). Fairhead and Leachs (1996) Misreading the African Landscape remains the best demonstration of how contemporary ideas about environmental degradation may derive more from racialized colonial discourses of power than from scientific investigations. In political ecology studies of colonialism, eth- nohistorical methods have been key in exploring the roles of local knowledge and practices in shaping landscapes. Such a methodological approach was innovatively employed to demon- strate how dominant representations of US southern plantation landscapes erased the role of African technological knowledge and prac- tices in creating them (Carney, 1996). It was West African knowledge and expertise in water engineering and rice cultivation, introduced through slavery, which created the antebellum tidal plantations of South Carolina and Georgia, resulting in visually similar landscapes on either side of the Atlantic. III Landscape studies and political ecology: Dialects or languages? From the late 1990s through the 2000s, political ecology writing has both built upon and cri- tiqued the limitations of landscape theory that emerged from 1980s NCG. Less generously stated, political ecology writing has yet to acknowledge the subsequent post-NCG debates within cultural geography that have produced the new wave of non-representational landscape studies. Exceptions to this general observation are rare (e.g. Batterbury, 2001) and those are limited to referencing Mitchells (1996) The Lie of the Land, a work that is approvingly cited in non-representational writing for its critique of NCG (e.g. Rose, 2006). Just as troubling, works in the non-representational landscape school wholly ignore political ecologys critical engagement with landscape. Troubling, because there exists a series of significant but unacknow- ledged convergences in the theorization of land- scape in the two literatures, suggesting that both camps have missed opportunities for mutually beneficial engagement. One of the most common refrains in the non- representational landscape studies is a call to focus on the daily lives of social actors, on everyday experience (Rose, 2002: 457), on processual daily practices(Gareth and Metzo, 2008: 224), and on mundane activities and struggles (Scott, 2006: 493). This refrain is a key part of a critical response to NCGs perceived obsessions with elite representations of land- scape, landscape as spectacle, or landscape as precoded with meaning. The critique is typically accompanied by frequent references to embodi- ment or embodied, thereby highlighting the corporeal, material, and experiential qualities of landscape. The everyday andthe embodiedare thus keywords in non-representational landscape studies. For better or worse, suchhighlylocalized explorations of daily lives in place have been a mainstay of political ecology studies. What could be more mundane, more everyday, than the production, reproduction, and maintenance of the suburban American lawnscape (Robbins and Sharp, 2003)? What exemplifies embodied experience more than peasant farmers every- where millions of times, over many generations scooping up bits of soil, mixing it in their palms with their own saliva, kneading the mud between their fingers, feeling its texture, smelling it, 846 Progress in Human Geography 35(6) tasting it, naming it, and transforming it through everyday cultivation practices? Political ecology starts in such moments with the land managers and their direct relations with the land (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987: 27). And it is from such everyday practices that landscapes are produced, experienced, and given meaning. Once we move beyond localized, everyday, embodied practice, however, non-representational landscape studies and political ecology can seem less like mutually intelligible dialects and more like distinct languages. What is the starting point for much political ecology (i.e. embodied expe- rience) is, it seems, the endpoint and sole interest of much non-representational landscape. Much non-representational work is uninterested in asking, much less answering, the question of how or why the embodied, self-knowing subject appears in any particular landscape at any partic- ular moment, hence emptying fromthat moment all social and political content (see Merriman et al., 2008). Political ecology, in contrast, seeks to answer exactly those questions, through the chain-of-explanation model or other macro- structural theoretical framings. Thus a political ecology study analyzes the production and maintenance of an environmentally toxic subur- ban lawnscape as the combined effect of individ- uals desires for direct, embodied encounters with nature and falling rates of profit in the agro-chemical industry (Robbins and Sharp, 2003). The degree of mutual intelligibility of non-representational landscape with political ecology depends on the approaches taken. Non-representational landscape work is evol- ving and fragmenting. If the approach taken is all individual agency and no structure then the commonalities with political ecology are mini- mal (e.g. Rose, 2002). However, there are other approaches that underscore the significance of social relations of power in the experience of landscape. In this work, the challenge is not to representation per se. Rather, the focus is reor- iented toward the instability and multiplicity of representations, how ideologies and meanings work . . . through representational practices (Mitchell, 2002: 384), and representations as performative (e.g. Dewsbury et al., 2002; Gareth and Metzo, 2008). These themes can be found to varying degrees in much of the political ecology work cited herein (e.g. Robbins, 2001; Walker and Fortmann, 2003), but they are neither fully explored nor directly engaged with post-NCG landscape studies. Work by non-geographers perhaps best demonstrates the theoretical and empirical potentialities of a more direct and explicit con- versation between two human geography fields, political ecology and landscape studies. Informed by both fields, but falling neatly in neither, anthropologists have approached land- scape not solely as elite discursive construction or symbolic vista, but simultaneously as embo- died encounters with water up to the armpits and nauseating odor (Ogden, 2008: 217). While giving attention to the corporeal and material, Ogden (2008) also recognizes that both popular and scientific understandings of landscape are deeply embedded in European colonial representations of wilderness and savagery. Moreover, she directly links domi- nant scientific representations to local, every- day knowledge and practices, demonstrating historically how residential knowledge move[s] up the chain of ever-authoritative command (p. 219). Similarly, Raffles (2002) ethnohistorical investigation locates the scientific command of rainforest ecology in the intellectual pool of local knowledge and pro- foundly undermines the representation of Amazonia as a European-discovered wilder- ness landscape. He develops an understanding of Amazon landscapes that closely echoes the themes of NRT approaches: We have been wading in terra anfbia, an amphi- bious world of mobile porosities where land and water become each other, and where humans and non-humans are made and unmade by those same Neumann 847 sediments that bring histories and natures flooding into the immediacy of the now. (Raffles, 2002: 182) Raffles Amazon landscapes are permanently becoming and made intimate through the trans- formative labor of individual agents in an every- day political economy (p. 181), embedded in international scientific initiatives, state systems of governmentality, and the extractive activities of multinational logging companies. IV Conclusion Since the late 1990s, political ecology studies have both embraced and critiqued the limitations of NCGs representational landscape theoriza- tions. In doing the latter, they anticipated many of the criticisms that have emerged in NRT- inspired landscape studies of the past decade. Just as Matless (2003) found common themes and problematics among the three landscape perspectives in the Handbook essays, one can observe that all three share common ground with muchworkin political ecology. The possibi- lities for productive intercourse between non- representational landscape and political ecology, however, are largely dependent on the form of non-representationalism with which one engages. Non-representational is a rather all- encompassing, ill-defined position supported by a disparate variety of theoretical foundations ranging from performance theory to Marxism. On the one hand, non-representational approaches that are highly personalized, experiential, and individua- lized while eschewing any social-theoretical, historical, or structural explanations will have the least to say to political ecology and vice versa. On the other hand, non-representational approaches focusing on how landscape works in providing meaning (Crouch, 2010), exploring how representations are performative in themselves (Dewsbury et al., 2002), or conceptualizing land- scape as inescapably political (Mitchell, 2001) are clearly of importance to political ecology. Landscape in political ecology tends not to be conceived as static representations of power, but as applications or expressions of power that have significant material consequences for peoples everydaylives, includingwhereandhowtheyman- age individual and collective livelihoods, and are therefore subject to contestation and competing representations (FairheadandLeach, 1996; Walker and Fortmann, 2003; Robbins and Sharp, 2003). Although shifts in approaches to landscape in political ecology and human geography more broadly often paralleled one another, this was not an outcome of sustained interaction between the fields. The presence of parallel develop- ments in the absence of productive interaction is a pattern that I observed in preparing the two previous progress reports. I want to close both this contribution and the series with a few com- ments about this observation. Political ecologys strength lies in is its interdisciplinarity and pro- pensity to poach without inhibition across the boundaries of other disciplines. The same might be said about geography more generally. It may be, however, that intradisciplinarity suffers for the sake of interdisciplinarity. I do not have a ready explanation for this phenomenon, though a few causal forces seem relevant. One is the pressure to publish original work, a feat per- haps more easily accomplished by engaging with work outside the discipline than with the writings of ones colleague in another geography department. Another is the problem of transla- tion. The trans-Atlantic passage is hard on disci- plinary categories. For example, what is social on one side is cultural on the other and each term can convey different meanings in either contexts (Cresswell, 2010). My primary interest, however, is not in explaining the absence of intradisciplinary dialog, but rather in modestly suggesting that more is lost than gained in failing to explore the productive tension between political ecology and human geography. References Anderson KM, Domosh M, Pile S, and Thrift N (eds) (2003) Handbook of Cultural Geography. London: SAGE. 848 Progress in Human Geography 35(6) Batterbury S (2001) Landscapes of diversity: A local political ecology of livelihood diversification in south- western Niger. Cultural Geographies 8(4): 43764. Batterbury SP and Bebbington AJ (1999) Environmental histories, access to resources and landscape change: An introduction. Land Degradation and Development 10: 279289. Blaikie P and Brookfield H (1987) Land Degradation and Society. London: Methuen. Blaut JM (1993) The Colonizers Model of the World: Geographical Diffusion and Eurocentric History. New York: Guilford Press. Bunce M(2008) The leisuring of rural landscapes in Bar- bados: New spatialities and the implications for sus- tainability in small island states. Geoforum 39(2): 969979. Carney J (1996) Landscapes of technology transfer: Rice cultivation and African continuities. Technology and Culture 31(1): 535. Cosgrove D (1983) Towards a radical cultural geography: Problems of theory. Antipode 15: 111. Cosgrove D (2003) Landscape and the European sense of sight eyeing nature. In: Anderson KM, Domosh M, Pile S, and Thrift N (eds) Handbook of Cultural Geo- graphy. London: SAGE, 249268. Cresswell T (2003) Landscape and the obliteration of prac- tice. In: Anderson KM, Domosh M, Pile S, and Thrift N (eds) Handbook of Cultural Geography. London: SAGE, 269281. Cresswell T (2010) New cultural geography an unfin- ished project? Cultural Geographies 17(2): 169174. Crouch D (2010) Flirting with space: Thinking landscape relationally. Cultural Geographies 17(1): 518. Dewsbury J, Harrison P, Rose M, and Wylie J (2002) Intro- duction: Enacting geographies. Geoforum33: 437440. Ekers M (2009) The political ecology of hegemony in depression-era British Columbia, Canada: Masculi- nities, work and the production of the forestscape. Geo- forum 40(3): 303315. Fairhead J and Leach M (1996) Misreading the African Landscape: Society and Ecology in a Forest-Savanna Mosaic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gareth JE and Metzo CR (2008) Yellowstone embodied: Truman Everts Thirty-seven days of peril. Gender, Place and Culture 15(3): 221242. Hecht S and Cockburn A (1990) The Fate of the Forest: Developers, Destroyers and Defenders of the Amazon. New York: Harper Perennial. Lorimer H (2005) Cultural geography: The busyness of being more-than-representational. Progress in Human Geography 29(1): 8394. Matless D (2003) Introduction: The properties of landscape.In: Anderson KM, Domosh M, Pile S, and Thrift N (eds) Handbook of Cultural Geography. London: SAGE, 227232. Merriman P, Revill G, Cresswell T, Lorimer H, Matless D, Rose G, et al. (2008) Landscape, mobility, practice. Social and Cultural Geography 9(2): 191212. Mitchell D (1996) The Lie of the Land: Migrant Workers and the California Landscape. Minneapolis, MN: Uni- versity of Minnesota Press. Mitchell D (2001) The lure of the local: Landscape studies at the end of a troubled century. Progress in Human Geography 25(2): 269281. Mitchell D (2002) Cultural landscapes: The dialectical landscape recent landscape research in human geography. Progress in Human Geography 26(3): 381389. Mitchell D (2003) Cultural landscapes: Just landscapes or landscapes of justice? Progress in Human Geography 27(6): 787796. Neumann RP (1995) Ways of seeing Africa: Colonial recasting of African society and landscape in Serengeti National Park. Ecumene 2(2): 14969. Neumann RP (1998) Imposing Wilderness: Struggles over Nature and Livelihoods in Africa. Berkeley, CA: Uni- versity of California Press. Neumann RP (2005) Making Political Ecology. London: Hodder Arnold. Ogden L (2008) Searching for paradise in the Florida Everglades. Cultural Geographies 15(2): 207229. Raffles H (2002) In Amazonia: A Natural History. Prince- ton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Robbins P (2001) Fixed categories in a portable land- scape: The causes and consequences of land cover categorization. Environment and Planning A 33: 161179. Robbins P and Sharp J (2003) Producing and consuming chemicals: The moral economy of the American lawn. Economic Geography 79(4): 42551. Rose M (2002) Landscape and labyrinths. Geoforum 33: 455467. Rose M (2006) Gathering dreams of presence: A project for cultural landscape. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24: 537554. Neumann 849 Rose M and Wylie J (2006) Animating landscape. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24: 475479. Scott HV (2006) Rethinking landscape and colonialism in the context of early Spanish Peru. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24: 481496. Sluyter A (1999) The making of the myth in postcolonial development: Material-conceptual landscape transfor- mation in sixteenth-century Veracruz. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89(3): 377401. Sluyter A (2001) Colonialism and landscape in the Amer- icas: Material/conceptual transformations and continu- ing consequences. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91(2): 410428. Thrift N (2008) Non-representational Theory: Space, Politics, Affect. New York: Routledge. Walker P and Fortmann L (2003) Whose landscape? A political ecology of the exurban Sierra. Cultural Geo- graphies 10(4): 469491. Zimmerer K (1999) Overlapping patchworks of mountain agriculture in Peru and Bolivia: Toward a regional- global landscape model. Human Ecology 27(1): 135165. Zimmerer K and Bassett T (2003) Approaching political ecology: Society, nature, and scale in human- environment studies. In Zimmerer K and Bassett T (eds) Political Ecology: An Integrative Approach to Geography and Environment-Development Studies. New York: Guilford Press, 125. 850 Progress in Human Geography 35(6) Reproducedwith permission of thecopyright owner. Further reproductionprohibited without permission.