Search results

ABSTRACT Nature(s) have been commodified since the early days of capitalism, but through processes and socio‐natural relationships mediated by their times, histories and localities. While the conditions under which nature's commodities are being trademarked today may be new, their potential for commodification is not. Commodifications of nature should not come as a surprise to environmental social scientists and activists. In this article, I argue that commodification of 'nature's products, places and processes' produces new sorts of socio‐natures. Situated histories of rubber are particularly relevant because, like carbon, ecosystem services and other recently commodified natures, rubber sits comfortably on the line between a fictitious commodity and a commodity produced explicitly for market: the latex alone has almost no use value, and to give it any exchange value, it requires processing. Yet analytically, it is still considered a 'natural commodity', different from 'synthetic rubber' and other tradable tree latexes in qualities and socio‐natural characteristics. However, it is the social relations constituting rubber's production and trade in various rainforest and agro‐forestry environments that have given it a positive or negative connotation, rather than its natural properties or the ecological contexts within which it has been produced. By situating rubber in three of its globally important temporal and spatial contexts, I show how it has been subjected to fairy‐tale‐like stories that masked and naturalized its commodity lives of the moment. Understanding how history is told or remains untold is thus an essential part of the politics of knowledge production, but also of human experience and mobilization for change. It should be part of any political ecology analysis.

ABSTRACTThis article makes connections between often‐disparate literatures on property, violence and identity, using the politics of rubber growing in West Kalimantan, Indonesia, as an example. It shows how rubber production gave rise to territorialities associated with and productive of ethnic identities, depending on both the political economies and cultural politics at play in different moments. What it meant to be Chinese and Dayak in colonial and post‐colonial Indonesia, as well as how categories of subjects and citizens were configured in the two respective periods, differentially affected both the formal property rights and the means of access to rubber and land in different parts of West Kalimantan. However, incremental changes in shifting rubber production practices were not the only means of producing territory and ethnicity. The author argues that violence ultimately played a more significant role in erasing prior identity‐based claims and establishing the controls of new actors over trees and land and their claims to legitimate access or 'rightfulness'. Changing rubber production practices and reconfigurations of racialized territories and identity‐based property rights are all implicated in hiding the violence.

Landscapes are culture before they are nature; constructs of the imagination projected onto wood and water and rock. … But once a certain idea of landscape, a myth, a vision, establishes itself in an actual place, it has a peculiar way of muddling categories, of making metaphors more real than their referents; of becoming, in fact, part of the scenery (Simon Schama 1995:61).

ABSTRACTExtractive reserves established in the Amazon have given development professionals hope for solving two critical problems in conservation and development: the empowerment of indigenous people and the conservation of tropical forests. The extraction of non‐timber forest products has provided an important part of the livelihood strategies of rainforest dwelling people and of the regional economy of East Kalimantan for some two millennia. The specific political‐economic and environmental circumstances of Indonesia and interior Kalimantan, however, preclude applying the Amazonian model for extractive reserves. Using a political ecology framework, this article analyses sociological and environmental factors emerging over the past two and a half decades and influencing contemporary rattan production and trade. Based on this analysis, the author concludes that the politics of forest management, at both the national and local levels, are more conducive to village level extractive reserves than to regional, labour‐based organizations.