Beginning with Peluso and Watts’ seminal edited volume, Violent Environments, scholars in political ecology have responded to the dominant narratives of environmental violence put forth by figures like Robert Kaplan and Thomas Homer-Dixon by interrogating the overly simplistic linkages they espouse between population, resources, and security (Peluso 1993; Watts 2004; Akiwumi et al 2006; Le Billon 2008). These critiques have formed the foundation of political ecology’s approach to environmental security and conflict, which has since been extended through the incorporation of novel methodologies and theoretical orientations that have pushed the discipline towards a greater understanding of these issues; for example: Le Billon and Duffy 2019; Masse 2018; Lunstrum 2018; Buscher and Fletcher 2019; Bluwstein 2019; Frederiksen and Himley 2019; Ybarra 2019; Marcatelli and Buscher 2019.
However, in the nearly two decades since Violent Environments was published, global changes like the worsening climate crisis and the rise of an age of securitization in response to events like 9/11 and the Global War on Terrorism have resulted in a resurrection of these resource scarcity narratives by political scientists (Evans 2011), economists (Krautkraemer 2005), state governments (Broder 2009), and the military (Barnett 2003). In this roundtable, we invite our panelists and audience members to theorize upon the major changes and advancements in approaches to environmental security and conflict - including new theorizations and empirical evidence - since Violent Environments was published.
|Introduction||Marlotte De Jong||10|
|Panelist||Bilal Butt University of Michigan||15|
|Panelist||Matthew Turner University of Wisconsin-Madison||15|
|Panelist||Nancy Peluso University of California, Berkeley||15|
To access contact information login