Feminist political ecology, gender, feminism, social reproduction

Extracting Us

Rebecca Elmhirst, Siti Maimunah, Elona Hoover, Dian Ekowati and Alice Owen

Between love and rape of the Pachamama

Irma Beusink

Wageningen University

Young female miners in Tajikistani coal mines: Intersectional violence and ecologies of exhaustion

Negar Elodie Behzadi

University of Bristol

An ethnographic study of women’s modes of decolonising the effects of large-scale mining in Sierra Leone

Jess Jones

University of Makeni

Social reproduction in the extractive state: Gender, land inheritance and Agrarian change in Cambodia

Alice Beban and Jo Bourke-Martignogni

Massey University / Graduate Institute, Geneva

Comments 20

  1. Welcome to this panel on feminist political ecology. Thank you everyone for your insightful presentations. I really enjoyed watching all the presentations, and tracing the myriad connections between them.

    To kick things off, I would be very interested to hear from other panelists about their views on Feminist Political Ecology (FPE) and its directions. For example: How do you see your own work drawing on FPE / feminist analysis, and pushing FPE theory in new directions? Why do you take an FPE approach? What do you see as the strengths of FPE, and what is missing? Where do you think FPE needs to go?

    In different ways, I think we all spoke to some of the key directions in which FPE has been going / is being pushed in recent years. For example, the focus across all papers on an intersectional analysis privileging gender, class, ethnicity and age; Negar’s and Irma’s focus on decolonial FPE analysis; the practice of collaboration and solidarity shown in the ‘Extracting Us’ exhibition; attention across papers to labour (and the connections between poor women’s productive labour and capacities for social reproduction; the focus on embodiment and the connections between situated bodies and ecologies (I really liked Negar’s focus on “Ecologies of exhaustion” to conceptualise this); Jess’ focus on going beyond women as victims of extraction to looking at women’s agency in maintaining/ reconstructing their life worlds; Irma’s focus on the state and the connections between state patriarchies and intimate gender relations…

    And there’s lots of other connections too. I’d love to hear from panelists and others reading about your views on FPE analysis.

    Also, a couple of specific questions:
    Negar – I wonder how we see poor women’s (productive mining) labour in the context of families’ strategies for reproduction. You discussed the ways in which the exhaustion of women’s bodies through their labour reduces their capacities for reproductive labour. How do families respond to this? What about the cash that women miners make – how does this money influence their positions within their households and communities?

    Jess – Fascinating how it was the older women that led this resistance. What is the age intersection with gender here (why was it older women)? Not class based? Also, was there ambiguous reaction to the ‘developments’ – e.g. the tanked water. (I can imagine that tank water was presented as much easier labour for women).

    Thanks everyone!

    1. Hi all,

      Thank you for your questions and comments, Alice. I agree that it is interesting that the older women led the resistance to some of the colonising effects large-scale mining has had in these communities. The major reason for older women being the leaders in this is largely related to age being an important influencing factor on women’s agency in these Kuranko communities. Here, a woman’s age, interconnected with her life experience, correlates with her status and decision-making power in the community (more so than class). Older women’s roles in their highly valued female secret society also increases their decision-making power and status as leaders in the community.

      In response to the question of ambiguous reactions to the so-called ‘development’ initiatives provided by the mining company, again is related to women’s status and lifeworlds. While, as you say ‘developments’ such as the provision of tanked water were promoted as making life better by the mining company, women gain respect and status from collecting water. Additionally women’s relationship with the river, is more valuable to them than having their labour reduced through the provision of tanked water. In this sense, I think there was an overall consensus in the three villages that the provision of tanked water was detrimental to local lifeworlds. However, I would argue that other ‘developments’ provided by the mining company received more ambiguous reactions. For example, the provision of the ‘Western’ modern houses were viewed as beneficial by some younger women and men in particular, whereas older women (and men) preferred their customary houses. I argue that due to older people having lived customary style lives for longer, they are more attached to the houses that enable them to do this. For some younger people they were more receptive to the provision of the ‘Western’ modern houses and prepared to change their lifestyle (to some extent) in line with these houses.

      1. Jess, thank you. I was struck by the similarities between women in Sierra Leone and the Papua New Guinea women I’ve been researching with. Similar colonial constructs underlying large scale mining exist in PNG. Access to water and the river is critical and largely misunderstood, western designs for resettlement houses (I prefer the term disemplacement to capture the severing of relationships between people, land ancestors etc.) and the houses (designs decided by the mining company) that will create barriers to women’s fulfilling the roles that were part of their identity. Will need to explore lifeworlds. But unlike in Sierra Leone, PNG women are very marginalised by masculine mining, western and traditional values and more recently in conservative Christian teachings. It would be great to be able to share the women’s story with each other.

        1. Thank you for your comment, Charles. It sounds like there are some very interesting similarities and differences between the two cases. I wonder, do different women experience mining and its effects in different ways in PNG? And, do women (and/or men) react to women being marginalised in the numerous ways you mention above? As you say, it would be great to discuss and compare women’s experiences of mining in PNG and SL in more detail.

      2. Thanks Jess. That’s really interesting about the importance of water in women’s lifeworlds as a source of status and of solidarity amongst women.

  2. Alice Beban
    Thank you very much Alice, for your interesting reflection for the panel.
    I would like to thank every one for the very interesting contributions. I was sharing the ‘extracting us’ video with a friend whom got inspired and started thinking how to implement those beautiful and strong actions you shared with us as informing and protesting and sending carts to the government. I also found the presentation of the art research project on floating tropics interesting.
    I liked to view the presentations of negar, jess and jo and alice. .
    Regarding theories of feminist political ecology, I would like to hear or read your comments on contradictions I am facing. My research is towards a political change process and it’s outcomes and I started to dive into extractivism when my research data showed the central place of extractivism in the imaginative and expectancies of the state and of the Bolivian people whom are not facing the negative consequences.
    So maybe therefore my theoretical framework is somehow broad, as I connect various theories of gender: intersectional gender, gender as related to norms, symbols, identities and institutions from Scott.J and to gender and the various ways power and agency is exercised and from feminist political ecology : the articulation of bodies and nature in comparing affective and violent human nature relations in the different political economies of buen vivir and extractivism. This part of my theoretical framework on extractivism coincides with that of Negar.
    In my research findings both in the 3 cases on extractivism ( mining, hydrocarbons and soy) and on the state level, I identified that extractivism in several degrees tends to structure gender relations in terms of the breadwinner and housewife and transactional sex relations. In the case of hydrocarbons, indigenous women have become marginalised and excluded from uneven redistributions of rents or reinvestment projects. And although I do not depict women as victims as they exercise agency either in ways to generate income in non-extractive activities if possible, in protesting extractivism, in denouncing the social environmental impacts, or by becoming included as marginal mineworkers, the options of women in extractive economies are much more limited by the masculinisation of power through the monopolisation of control on land, capital, employment and income. Although I would like to have emphasised more the agency of women, which potentially is also a more empowering act of doing research, in the moment I am drawing the conclusion that extractivism structures gender relations by increasing economic gender inequalities and dependencies of women on men. What do you think about this preliminary conclusion?
    I also raised a question at the end of my presentation about different data presented by the Bolivian state about the gender income gap. I have my hypothesis of the causes of these differences but I was curious about your comments.
    I have some concrete questions for Jo and Alice: what an interesting case on the matrilineal charay communities. What is the reason of land scarcity : is that the commodification of agriculture and related land grabbing, or differentiation processes within communities? Is the change from matrilineality to bilateralism due to the influence of the khmir and / or also due to the increasing inequalities within communities?
    I also liked the concept of the “extractive state”, whom did you mention as the coiner of the concept?

    with greetings

    1. Hi Irma, I think your preliminary conclusion makes sense. As you note, it is difficult sometimes to present the constrained agency that women have – not wanting to suggest that women are passive/victims but at the same time not wanting to over-emphasise women’s agency when the situation is so negative. I liked the way you discussed the different implications for women’s increased dependency on men depending on the different forms of extraction and the position of the state. I also wonder in your preliminary conclusion if you might bring out ways that different women are affected depending on their positions as, for example, status within the household/family (married, older/younger, daughter, in-law etc etc); class and ethnic position, age etc. In our research, one thing we found is that extraction is reshaping gender dynamics, particularly for younger women from poorer families, as inheritance and matrilocal norms are shifting.

      The reference on extractive regimes was Paul Gellert, in his work on Indonesia (eg. Extractive Regimes: Toward a Better Understanding of Indonesian Development).

      To your question about the context in Northern Cambodia – the main cause of land scarcity is the enclosure of forests and communal lands through forestry and agribusiness concessions. This is what I term extractive agriculture – the government has granted large-scale long-term leases of up to 99 years for the production of commodity crops (mainly rubber). These commercial concessions are frequently granted on indigenous communities’ lands. There are also other causes including the migration of ethnic Khmer from lowland Cambodia, who have come to the uplands in search of land, and the adoption of cash crops by indigenous farmers. So this is a particular case of commercialisation of agriculture, where there has been both rapid, and widespread loss of Indigenous community lands (and the water and forests necessary for livelihoods) through agribusiness concessions, which has been detrimental to indigenous households as a whole, as well as the (state-sponsored) shift to private property, cash crops and high land prices, which has led to inequality within Indigenous communities.

      1. Thank you Alice for your explanation of the processes leading to an increase in land scarcity in the North of Cambodja. Thus the commodification of land and resources has led to enclosures but also to intra community inequalities.
        And thanks you for your comment on agency. I have various threads of intersectional gender dynamics but more on a societal level than in the particular case studies. For instance the intersection with age is important in analysing the rural urban migrations: young female indigenous women do migrate more to the urbans in search for better life opportunities but because of processes of gender and ethnic discrimination their oportuniteis are ‘class based’ ; employed as domestic workers or as prostitute.
        In my previous research, the intersection between age and gender, was implicit in the methodology of intragenerational research.

  3. Thanks so much for all presenters delving into the FPE and providing us with a chance to re-think and re-question the intersectionality of race, gender, class, and ethnicity in different contexts.

    My question is to Alice Beban and Jo Bourke-Martignogni.

    I wonder whether you have observed any willingness to migrate (internal or external) among villagers (especially considering new land pressures, growing inequalities, and the presence of the state as an ‘extractive state’ and its absence as a social protector, as you clearly underlined). Similarly, have you observed any direct or indirect impacts of changing climate on their livelihoods and social relations?

    Looking forward to your answer. Thanks.

    1. Hi Hacer, Thanks so much for your comment.

      What’s really interesting in this area of the Cambodian uplands (and really different from the rest of the country) is that out-migration is not yet seen as an option for most young people. In other parts of the country, it is very common for rural areas to be really quiet and mostly only children and elderly people around, as so many people are migrating to Phnom Penh, Thailand or further afield such as Malaysia or Korea. But amongst the Indigenous families we interviewed, only a handful of people had family members who had gone to the city (and these were all men). Many people were worried about safety (especially of girls) if they migrated, and they had also heard stories about people who had gone to Phnom Penh or Thailand but couldn’t make a living. People also said they didn’t have the same networks like Khmer do, they don’t have the cash to pay brokers, and they are worried about being tricked as Khmer is not their first language. I actually thought I would see an increase in out-migration over the period of our study (from 2016-2020) but we didn’t see this.

      In terms of the impacts of climate, we definitely see big impacts here. We asked people about whether they had experienced any shocks, and the two biggest shocks (affecting more than half of farming households) were the rise in rice prices and the recent drought/flooding events that affected crops. People talked about trying to farm differently to deal with the risk of climate change, such as diversifying crops, and some valued land differently. For example, people might prefer to pass on to their children a planted cashew field, rather than rice land, because they can get regular income and it is difficult to plant rice when the rains are coming later and are more erratic.

  4. Hi all,

    Thanks a lot Alice for your questions and to all other presenters. I was delighted to listen to all these great presentations.

    In response to your question on FPE : in my opinion, FPE’s contributions to the study of resource extraction is based on several main elements.
    (i) The first one is epistemological – as many other feminist approaches, one of the main contributions of FPE is to focus on the standpoint of the marginalised and aiming at unearthing subjugated knowledges: who gets excluded in/from resource extractive projects and whose voice(s) can be made visible? I really liked the emphasis on solidarity and care in all these contributions too.
    (ii) The second main contribution relates to the multi-scalar analysis that an FPE approach allows to develop – from the global transformation of modes of resource governance to the very personal, everyday and intimate experiences of labour, resource control and access. The turn to ’emotional political ecology’ and the focus on the ‘body’ as a predominant site of analysis in FPE contributes to this relational/multi-scalar analysis. This link, I think, was very present in all contributions.
    (ii) The third contribution is thematic – a focus on social reproduction and its link with transformation of modes of resource governance is an example, and was central in all our presentations I believe. In my case, it’s thinking about how young women’s sense of self, the view men and women develop on their reproductive capacity, their prospect and future (in terms of marriage) is shaped by the rise of an emergent capitalist landscape in Tajikistan.
    (iv) The fourth main contribution is I think related to a more recent attention (that we all shared) on intersectionality. FPE is not only about women, it is about understanding intersectional experiences of resource exclusion and violence, as well as thinking about how the transformation of modes of resource governance shapes multiple axes of difference. This is at the heart of my work, very central to the ‘Extracting Us’ group, and from what I saw from your presentation Alice and Jo, very present in your own work too.
    (v) Last but not least, I think an FPE approach really allows to think about gendered identities, subjectivities in relation in fluid terms, by emphasizing both processes of gendered subjection and oppression as well as resistance, reworking(s), resilience (I’m using Katz’ terminology here to try to keep in mind the differences between these different levels of response to forms of oppression), as well as their coexistence.

    In response to your question about my specific contribution to FPE . My recent work has led me to think more about the meaning of a decolonial political ecology. And I found it really interesting to listen to Jess’ presentation who also mentions the idea of a decolonial FPE. In my own work, a decolonial FPE approach has meant thinking about both about the everyday experiences and the systemic exclusions produced by capitalist expansion – and in particular the way in which the reinforcement of axes of difference (around gender, but also around class in particular, but also age and Muslimness) are tied to the rise of extractive capitalism in Tajikistan. I referred to the idea of ‘ecologies of exhaustion’ and ‘intersectional extractive violence’ to link these two ideas. Drawing on decolonial thinking goes also beyond thinking about the historical ties with colonisation in one place, but to recognise forms of ‘colonial presence’ (I’m using Ann Laura Stoler’s words here) – ie that colonialism endures, including in our modes of production/reproduction Thinking in decolonial terms allows I think to move from flat uses of intersectionality. By flat uses I mean invoking intersectionality in a descriptive way that does not allow to capture the ways in which (and why) axes of difference are produced/reproduced .

    Finally, in response to your question around the perspectives on poor women’s productive labour in the context of families’ strategies for reproduction – My presentation (and the chapter it draws) focuses on young women. Their work is indeed essential to and embedded into familial strategies. I touched upon it briefly in the last part of the presentation, but young women’s work is very much part of a broader intergenerational system of solidarity whereby young women’s work enables families to keep men at home (rather than having them to go to Russia for seasonal labour migration where experiences can sometimes be very hard). Their work is hence valued at home. The perspectives other villagers and the broader community have on these young girls is ambivalent – in a way their future prospects are compromised (they are called the komorkesh, no family would want them as daughter in laws) but they are not considered as responsible for their condition (poverty is). In contrast, adult female miners are considered as responsible Their productive labour often allows them to hold their families together (these are usually single female head of households who have one to several children and have been isolated for their broader families).

    Thanks a lot for your questions!

    Negar

    1. Thanks Negar. That’s such as great point you make about rescuing intersectionality from ‘flat’ description. I know I can be guilty of a presentist view, and one thing I appreciated in our opening keynote panel was the way Jason Moore brought a historical analysis back into the discussion.

    2. Hello Negar
      Thank you very much for your brillant analysis of the contribution of FPE to resource extraction. I just downloaded your article and if I had more time, I would like to read your PhD thesis and your new book. I think you have retaken FPE theories combined with interesting methodological research approaches and developed your research in a complex but interesting context of mining in the post soviet era. I think I can learn a lot from your publications.
      In my recent research I am working on a particular gender aspect of the political economy of extractivism, that is more related to the analytical working of gender in the economy and ecology. I identified different mechanisms why the political economy of extractivism exacerbates gender inequalities : not only because of the gendered labour divide of the public and private delegating all care and Household work to women, but also the gendered mining-food nexus and the related gendered working of the resource curse and the gendered processes of re-inversion of for instance the money-cement-speculation bubble : all reinforcing male power based on capital, income and employment. The political economy of extractivism in the context of South America is extremely gendered and is also co-constituted with cultural spiritual symbolism.
      Maybe I started to explore these more analytical aspects because I was in a particular position ( a long physical distance from my research areas) and wanting to analyse a plural societal process of change, that I did not dive in one specific case but combine many cases and processes . In your research, I see an enormous potential to dive in one case and analyse all the intersectional gender dynamics taken place.
      Thanks you very much for your contributions

  5. Many thanks to all for your thought provoking presentations. My questions are to the Extracting Us team and to Negar.

    The Extracting Us team: I’m currently doing some work with a student on visual representations of climate change, what they communicate, and whether certain images are better at prompting action than others (influenced by psychological work). Are those themes that you find in your own work, as it is rooted in a different disciplinary perspective? Relatedly, there is debate on the role of the arts in raising awareness, engaging the public and even prompting action within the public. What has your experience been from your work? What are your hopes for the Extracting Us exhibition and how will you know how it’s being received and who is accessing it, especially with the move online? Sorry, I appreciate those are a lot of questions, and I just want to say that I am myself grappling with all of those so I was delighted to watch your presentation and to have the opportunity to hear more about your experiences.

    Negar: I was fascinated by your ethnography in this mining village, especially as I have researched a former coal mining region, albeit in a very different context (in the UK). I’m particularly interested in the idea of the extractive landscape and on coal being ‘all they’ve got’ and taking over their physical world -that really resonated with the oral histories I’ve done. I wondered if you could tell us more about people’s relationship with the landscape and with coal. Beyond the mining work, what impacts does this have on their everyday live? I’m also interested in themes of affect and emotions – did you notice any of those in your work, in relation to the landscape?

    Thank you all!

    1. Hi Mel,

      Thanks a lot for your questions. Overlaps between completely distinct and seemingly disconnected places are, I found, so much more common than one could imagine. In the book that I am co-editing, we are bringing together cases from very different places (Global North and South). Yet, together they reveal I think the connections between different forms of extractive violence. Similarities are really striking.

      I would love hearing more about your oral histories. I was reading about coal mining communities closing down all around the world following the COVID 19 crisis the other day (in the UK, the US and elsewhere), with workers being made redundant, in places where people have been working in mining generation after generation. Surely, the social fabric of places is deeply tainted by coal and the end of mining will live traces.

      In Kante, the village where I conducted my ethnography – the relationship to coal is really ambivalent. It’s both seen as what makes the village different (and in a better position) than other villages. At the same time, this is also what threatens the very existence of the village ( on the contradictions of extractive capitalist expansion and its inherent threat of productive exhaustion). It brings money, but it ’empties minds’ say a lot of villagers (and particularly women when they refer to the idea of children not being interested in studying anymore but being only interested in mining). The material resource per se, is somehow seen as what corrupts minds (as well as women’s bodies).

      I have been exploring emotions in the context of my work, in particular around notions of shame, as well as pride, and anger. A large part of my work has focused on how shame is produced, reproduced and contested in relation with the emergence of this new extractive landscape, and how shame is a central element in the gendered subjectification process. In the context of Kante, and as mentioned in the presentation, female miners are stigmatised and shamed. Their shaming occurs through the use of local idioms (that villagers relate to Muslim religion and local customs) around honour and shame. In my work, I’ve tried to approach these notions in a flexible way, by looking at shame as more than a component of a fixed honour and shame system, but rather as an emotion, that is also related to sister emotions (pride, anger, guilt) and that is central to female miners’ lives and the definition of their sense of self. I have also looked at the process of shaming of female miners with relation to the transformations of masculinities with a loss of sense of self, anger against disposession that emerged since the fall of the Soviet Union and the emergence of an extractive landscape. I am still writing/publishing on these aspects. But if you would like to know more, there is this article available online at the moment: Behzadi N.E (2019) Women miners’ exclusion and Muslim masculinities in Tajikistan: A feminist political ecology of honor and shame, Geoforum. It focuses on masulinities and emotions in the context of Kante.

      I would be very happy to discuss all this further.

      All the best, and thanks again for your questions!

      Negar

      1. Thanks so much for your answer Negar – I’ve not managed to reply to it properly yet but just wanted to note here that I will, and just flag up that I had a presentation about the work I mention on the coal panel on 1st July if you have a chance to take a look.

        All the best,

        Mel

    2. Dear Mel,

      Thank you for the question, and thank you for all presenter for the strong presentation.

      This is our first-time experience also to have an online exhibition, at least from my experience. So we still learn how to do it. Even though, It challenges us to explore the creativity and how to engage with the audience. That makes us think about the web of connection around extractivism, and how the exhibition has a conversation with the community affected by extractivism, especially in Asia. Woman and Mining in Action in Asia (WAMA) is the network of NGO’s and woman affected from India, Indonesia, Philippines, Mongolia, and Cambodia will join us and give the response to our exhibition by reflecting on it, think the similar or opposite or whatever experiences that they have around extractivism in their home country, during the exhibition. Through the ‘conversation’ during Extracting Us exhibition, we hope in this way we maintain the spirit of Extracting Us to bring art to challenge the extractivism, exploring care and connecting the solidarity, and bring more attention to the exhibition.

      I believe art has a significant role to bring people awareness and solidarity. The community around mountain Kendeng in Indonesia combines the persistent protest and the art to resist cement mining in their area is significant to get support from national and international supporters. Singing, painting the cloth, the poem, and poetic ritual is effective ‘weapon’ for connecting the public with the remote place of cement mining, and give solidarity. Another community against marble mining in Timor island also uses the colorful weaving to send a message of resistance and teach the wider public about the relation of nature and the human body. My learning is, to bring the theme or the image that connect with public daily experiences with nature (water, food, river), or production-consumption (electronics, oil palm, the paper) and others will help to connect with the wider issue such as transnational corporations, or even climate change.

      I hope it helps to answer your questions.

      Salam hangat,
      Mai

      1. Thanks a lot for your answer, that’s really helpful. I think the fact that you can get WAMA to take part and discuss their experience with you is so interesting, and I find your idea of art and solidarity being very powerful. I’m still left wondering about how this message comes to people across the world (I guess the advantage of the exhibition being online is that it will potentially reach a much wider audience). Research in Europe has shown that not all images and visuals of climate change are received equally by the public and some bring the issues closer to home whereas others have the opposite effect of psychologically distancing people from what is portrayed. That seems like a big conundrum to me. Anyway, I’ll keep thinking about it. Thanks again!

        Mel

  6. Hi Mel,

    Thanks a lot for your questions. Overlaps between completely distinct and seemingly disconnected places are, I found, so much more common than one could imagine. In the book that I am co-editing, we are bringing together cases from very different places (Global North and South). Yet, together they reveal I think the connections between different forms of extractive violence. Similarities are really striking.

    I would love hearing more about your oral histories. I was reading about coal mining communities closing down all around the world following the COVID 19 crisis the other day (in the UK, the US and elsewhere), with workers being made redundant, in places where people have been working in mining generation after generation. Surely, the social fabric of places is deeply tainted by coal and the end of mining will live traces.

    In Kante, the village where I conducted my ethnography – the relationship to coal is really ambivalent. It’s both seen as what makes the village different (and in a better position) than other villages. At the same time, this is also what threatens the very existence of the village ( on the contradictions of extractive capitalist expansion and its inherent threat of productive exhaustion). It brings money, but it ’empties minds’ say a lot of villagers (and particularly women when they refer to the idea of children not being interested in studying anymore but being only interested in mining). The material resource per se, is somehow seen as what corrupts minds (as well as women’s bodies).

    I have been exploring emotions in the context of my work, in particular around notions of shame, as well as pride, and anger. A large part of my work has focused on how shame is produced, reproduced and contested in relation with the emergence of this new extractive landscape, and how shame is a central element in the gendered subjectification process. In the context of Kante, and as mentioned in the presentation, female miners are stigmatised and shamed. Their shaming occurs through the use of local idioms (that villagers relate to Muslim religion and local customs) around honour and shame. In my work, I’ve tried to approach these notions in a flexible way, by looking at shame as more than a component of a fixed honour and shame system, but rather as an emotion, that is also related to sister emotions (pride, anger, guilt) and that is central to female miners’ lives and the definition of their sense of self. I have also looked at the process of shaming of female miners with relation to the transformations of masculinities with a loss of sense of self, anger against disposession that emerged since the fall of the Soviet Union and the emergence of an extractive landscape. I am still writing/publishing on these aspects. But if you would like to know more, there is this article available online at the moment: Behzadi N.E (2019) Women miners’ exclusion and Muslim masculinities in Tajikistan: A feminist political ecology of honor and shame, Geoforum. It focuses on masulinities and emotions in the context of Kante.

    I would be very happy to discuss all this further.

    All the best, and thanks again for your questions!

    Negar

  7. Hi, I’m Roy Cobby from King’s College London, presenting at Knowledge production and data extraction stream Panel 2: Technology and infrastructure.

    First, thanks to Rebecca, Siti, Elona, Dian and Alice for such an engaging video. I was definitely thinking about creative ways of presenting at the conference, but sadly my imagination is limited. Thanks a lot for your presentation!

    I am also not surprised by the conclusions by Irma: there is a constant game of statistics with regard to gender inclusion, so thank you for the work in analysing the truth behind them.

    Jess, I really liked how you rescued agency, which is often erased in these discussions.

    Finally, Alice and Jo really supported the idea from Ribot and Peluso whereby legal rights are not everything mediating land access: gender inequalities are fundamental.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *