Groundwater governmentality: hegemony and technologies of resistance in Rajasthan's (India) groundwater governance
Groundwater governmentality: hegemony and technologies of resistance in Rajasthan's (India) groundwater governance
复制标题
地下水治理：拉贾斯坦邦（印度）地下水治理中的霸权和抵抗技术
DOI：
10.1111/j.1475-4959.2009.00327.x
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Trevor Birkenholtz
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Trevor Birkenholtz
在全球范围内，权力下放已成为环境治理的主导模式。本文探讨了绿色治理方法的主体性和葛兰西的霸权概念之间的联系，以检查最近的努力，在印度的拉贾斯坦邦，通过有针对性的正式法规和推广活动，如水的认识运动（Jal Abhiyaan）分散地下水治理。后者试图通过将农民对国家地下水保护工作的支持制度化，包括私有化，来改变农民的信仰和做法。本文利用家庭调查和对农民和政府代理人的访谈，考察了国家主体制定的政治经济动机和实践与基于农民多重主体地位的对这些努力的不同抵制之间的关系。调查结果表明，第一，国家的动机是通过其货币和咨询与捐助机构，如世界银行的关系。通过推广活动和胁迫，它试图为其提议获得“同意”，这些提议下放了国家控制权，而不是真正下放决策权，以使新自由主义地下水保护的自我指导和自愿主体。但是，第二，这些尝试受到一些农民的抵制，他们通过抗议、非正式讨论、不参与以及通过灌溉伙伴关系集体获得地下水和灌溉。第三，农民对这些努力的抵制或支持是不同的，这是基于他们的多重主体性（种姓，阶级和生态条件）。本文通过整合治理和葛兰西社会权力和主体性方法的经验教训，推进了我们对环境主体形成过程和环境治理权力下放的理解。
Globally, decentralisation has become the dominant paradigm for environmental governance. This paper explores the linkages between green governmentality approaches to subjectivity and Gramscian notions of hegemony to examine recent efforts in Rajasthan, India to decentralise groundwater governance through targeted formal regulations and outreach activities, such as water awareness campaigns (Jal Abhiyaan). The latter seeks to alter the beliefs and practices of farmers by institutionalising their support for state groundwater conservation efforts, including privatisation. The paper draws on household surveys and interviews with farmers and government agents to examine the relationship between the political economic motivations for and practices of state subject-making and differential resistance to these efforts based on farmers’ multiple subject positions. Findings suggest, first, that the state is motivated through its monetary and advisory relationship with donor agencies, such as the World Bank. Through both outreach activities and coercion, it attempts to gain ‘consent’ for its proposals, which devolve state control rather than truly decentralising decision-making, to make self-conducting and willing subjects of specifically neoliberal groundwater conservation. But, second, these attempts are being resisted by some farmers through protests, informal discussions, non-participation, and the collectivisation of access to groundwater and irrigation through irrigation partnerships. Third, resistance to these efforts, or support for them, is different between farmers based on their multiple subjectivities (caste, class and ecological conditions). The paper advances both our understanding of the processes of environmental subject-making and of the devolution of environmental governance, by integrating the lessons from governmentality and Gramscian approaches to social power and subjectivity.