Rethinking Power and Authority: Symbolic Violence and Subjectivity in Nepal's Terai Forests

Abstract

Recent work on authority, power and the state has opened up important avenues of inquiry into the practices and contexts through which power is exercised. Why certain forms of authority emerge as more durable and legitimate than others remains a challenge, however. In this article we bring together two bodies of thought to engage this issue, feminist theories of power and subjectivity and Bourdieu's ideas of symbolic violence, in order to explore how power and authority are reproduced and entrenched. Our purpose is to advance theorizing on power and authority in the context of contentious political situations and institutional emergence. This unusual theoretical synergy allows us to illustrate how power is exercised in relation to natural resource management and the ways in which the conflict/post‐conflict context creates institutional forms and spaces which simultaneously challenge and reinforce antecedent forms of authority. To animate our theoretical concerns, we draw on work in community‐based forestry in Nepal, with a focus on some of the conflicts that have arisen in relation to the valuable Sal forests of the Terai, or lowland plains.

Policy without politics: technocratic control of climate change adaptation policy making in Nepal

“…These 'out-of-the-context' framings shape the policy and planning practices through which aid and technical assistance are provided. This means that questions such as who is vulnerable and who is not, and what measures can enable their adaptation, are determined by a technocratic logic and implemented through specific cycles of programmatic actions, with limited opportunity for local cultural adjustment to climate vulnerability (Ribot, 2014; see also Nightingale & Ojha, 2013). Although there is now a widespread recognition of the need to go beyond the narrowly conceived biophysical approach to vulnerability (McLaughlin & Dietz, 2008), much of the climate change discourse is still dominated by a science that focuses on vulnerability as an outcome of biophysical climate change and the risks of natural hazards.…”

“…This is evident from studies that have highlighted how development aid has either strengthened the status quo (Metz, 1995) or reinforced inequality contributing to social conflicts in Nepal (Sharma, 2006;Upreti, 2004). Moreover, given the political and social differences that exist in Nepal, creating some space for participation is not enough (Tamang, 2011) as this can in itself lead to 'participatory exclusion' (Agarwal, 2001); more critical to representation in policy making is how the underlying power relations are addressed (Gaventa, 2004;Kothari & Cook, 2001) and what opportunities for transformative deliberation are created (Nightingale & Ojha, 2013;Ojha et al, 2014).…”

“…The first is the ways in which progressive notions like 'participation' and 'multistakeholder deliberation' are mobilized and enacted by the dominant players of the policy field (Nightingale & Ojha, 2013). Those who shape and define policy processes often appear self-conscious about the need to take a participatory approach and involve communities -as demanded by the UNFCCC guideline itself (UNFCCC, 2002).…”

“…Key climate policies including the NAPA and LAPA were formulated at a time when the country was moving through one of the most painful political transitions in its history (between 2008 and 2011), yet the 'climate agenda' received little political attention in the sphere of party politics. However, the lack of political contestation around climate policy is not surprising given the prior history of environmental policy making in Nepal, with 'developmentalist cultural codes' remaining predominant in framing national policy outcomes (Nightingale & Ojha, 2013). While other policy processes like agricultural development strategy (2012 -2013) and decisions about the extension of protected area (2010) have remained highly contested among various actors, extending the debate among the political parties, climate policy processes escaped such debate.…”

Group Inequality and Environmental Sustainability: Insights from Bangladesh and Kenyan Forest Commons

“…Disinheritance of indigenous peoples from their lands in many Asian and African countries began with imposition of a new environmental narrative that has been variously termed as fortress conservation, environmental colonialism or conservation with "techno-bureaucratic codes" [95][96][97]. This conservation narrative assumes that communal management is detrimental to sustainability, harmful for physical environment, and leads to over-exploitation and destruction of wildlife.…”