z-logo
Premium
Towards a critical political ecology of human–forest interactions: collecting herbs and mushrooms in a Bulgarian locality
Author(s) -
Staddon Chad
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
transactions of the institute of british geographers
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.196
H-Index - 107
eISSN - 1475-5661
pISSN - 0020-2754
DOI - 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2009.00339.x
Subject(s) - bulgarian , locality , politics , argument (complex analysis) , political ecology , sociology , ecology , space (punctuation) , environmental ethics , epistemology , political science , law , biology , computer science , philosophy , biochemistry , linguistics , operating system
This paper presents a critical political ecology of human–forest interactions in a Bulgarian locality. Based on primary fieldwork carried out annually since 1992, the argument is advanced that even in a relatively small space, environment–society relationships are sufficiently complex to make the enterprises of empirical analysis and theory‐building quite challenging. Yet, as this case study of informal resource use practices shows, it is precisely because environment–society relationships are so intertwined that a ‘symmetrical’ treatment of humans and non‐human actors is required; one that takes us well beyond the traditional political ecology of Blaikie or Black, but which, I shall argue, does not escape it entirely. Through a detailed ethnographic account of herb and mushroom collecting I develop the idea of ‘symmetry’ in three distinct ways. First I will explore the by now well‐publicised notion that non‐humans can be actors too. Second this basic insight will be developed via the more advanced conceptualisation of entities such as Thrift's ‘effloresences’ or expressions of ‘distributed’ information spaces and applied to the case study of herb and mushroom collection in a southwestern Bulgarian locality. Finally I consider the theoretical and practical policy implications of this analysis for all concerned, but most particularly those who claim to ‘manage’ and ‘regulate’ human–forest interactions.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here