• About Us
    • About the platform
    • Editorial Collective
  • Essays
    • Short Essays
    • Longer Reads
    • Reviews
    • Interviews
  • Series
    • Italian Political Ecologies
    • Reimagining, remembering and reclaiming water
    • Political Ecologies of the Far Right
    • Green inequalities in the city
    • Authoritarianism, populism and political ecology
    • Ecology after Capitalism
    • Ecomodernist socialism and comunist futurism
    • Political Ecology for Civil Society
    • World Press Photography Awards
    • Authoritarianism, populism and political ecology
    • Green inequalities in the city
    • Political Ecologies of Pesticides
    • Political Ecologies of the Far Right
    • Political Ecology for Civil Society
    • Ecomodernist socialism and comunist futurism
    • World Press Photography Awards
    • Ecology after Capitalism
    • Reimagining, remembering and reclaiming water
  • Resources
  • Events and Calls
  • Art & multimedia
  • Contribute
  • About Us
    • About the platform
    • Editorial Collective
  • Essays
    • Short Essays
    • Longer Reads
    • Reviews
    • Interviews
  • Series
    • Italian Political Ecologies
    • Reimagining, remembering and reclaiming water
    • Political Ecologies of the Far Right
    • Green inequalities in the city
    • Authoritarianism, populism and political ecology
    • Ecology after Capitalism
    • Ecomodernist socialism and comunist futurism
    • Political Ecology for Civil Society
    • World Press Photography Awards
    • Authoritarianism, populism and political ecology
    • Green inequalities in the city
    • Political Ecologies of Pesticides
    • Political Ecologies of the Far Right
    • Political Ecology for Civil Society
    • Ecomodernist socialism and comunist futurism
    • World Press Photography Awards
    • Ecology after Capitalism
    • Reimagining, remembering and reclaiming water
  • Resources
  • Events and Calls
  • Art & multimedia
  • Contribute
  • About Us
    • About the platform
    • Editorial Collective
  • Essays
    • Short Essays
    • Longer Reads
    • Reviews
    • Interviews
  • Series
    • Italian Political Ecologies
    • Reimagining, remembering and reclaiming water
    • Political Ecologies of the Far Right
    • Green inequalities in the city
    • Authoritarianism, populism and political ecology
    • Ecology after Capitalism
    • Ecomodernist socialism and comunist futurism
    • Political Ecology for Civil Society
    • World Press Photography Awards
    • Authoritarianism, populism and political ecology
    • Green inequalities in the city
    • Political Ecologies of Pesticides
    • Political Ecologies of the Far Right
    • Political Ecology for Civil Society
    • Ecomodernist socialism and comunist futurism
    • World Press Photography Awards
    • Ecology after Capitalism
    • Reimagining, remembering and reclaiming water
  • Resources
  • Events and Calls
  • Art & multimedia
  • Contribute
Forging Solidarity, taking a stand on Palestine
October 15, 2015
Gudynas and Harvey
October 20, 2015

Friendly colonialism and the 'Harvey fashion'

Published by Undisciplined Environments on October 15, 2015

by Eduardo Gudynas*

Latin American progressive governments like citing Harvey’s work because it allows them to position themselves against global capitalism while glossing over the contradictions of their own extractivist policies.

gudynas_high res

The Uruguayan political ecologist Eduardo Gudynas. Source: youtube.com

One of the most striking issues in the critiques of capitalism coming from Latin America are the continuous invocations of the English geographer David Harvey. References to the idea of “accumulation by dispossession” are repeated in hundreds of academic texts published by Latin Americans, and the author himself has been invited by the progressive governments of Ecuador and Bolivia.

Let us recall that Harvey proposed the idea of ” to replace Karl Marx’s concept of “original (or primitive) accumulation”. It refers to processes such as the commodification of land, expulsion of peasants, the transformation of labour into a commodity, colonialism or other aspects of the financialisation of economies.

They are attractive ideas which, without elaborating, many would share, and which in part explains the avalanche in citations of the term. Beyond that, however, I would like to explore other aspects of this “Harvey fashion” especially in South America, and the fact that the progressive governments of invite him and use his concepts to enhance their image as radicals. I am concerned about two issues.

The first is that this “fashion” ignores the rich history of Latin American reflections and takes us back into the hands of Northern thought. The second is that, while critiques such as Harvey’s can be shared, they are in any case insufficient for the Latin American reality. And it is precisely because of their incompleteness that progressive governments cite him and invite him.

A fashion

Let me explain, starting with the first point. The problem of accumulation by dispossession popularized by Harvey, as capitalist appropriation of natural resources or labour, in its basic ideas is not new. In Latin America we have a long and sad history of massive appropriation of our resources and of dispossession of indigenous people and peasants to enrich corporations and governments in other continents.

We also have many thinkers, activists and academics who, in their own way, in the last century at least have essentially supported these ideas. To give a few examples that come to mind, the reflections proposed decades ago by Mario Arrubla in Colombia, René Zavaleta Mercado in Bolivia, Ruy Mauro Marini from Brazil and Fernando Velasco Abad from Ecuador. Regardless of the positions one may have today regarding these and other authors, my point is that there is a very rich library of Latin Americans which is neglected time and again.

All this leads me to point out that, irrespective of whether one agrees or not with specific aspects of the theory of accumulation by dispossession, it would seem at times that this fashion is a new symptom of intellectual colonialism, whereby many prefer to quote an English author, leaving aside the recovery of our Latin American intellectual references. This may have to do with the academic obsession embraced in Latin America to cite texts in English or publications in Northern journals, as a demonstration of scientific expertise.

We are not facing a problem with Harvey, but rather a limitation in us Latin Americans. It is a friendly colonialism. It is friendly because the idea of a critique of global capitalism is attractive, but what goes unnoticed for this reason is that this is a form of colonialism, since we all draw upon, copy, repeat or seek the legitimation which irradiates from the “North”.

Four shortcomings

My second point does have to do with the emphasis of Harvey’s analysis. I insist that many of his theses can be shared, as they offer a valuable tool for understanding global capitalism. But the key issue to consider is whether these contributions are sufficient to understand what happens in Latin America, in our continent, and at this exact moment, at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Here I find four important limitations.

The first one is that the approaches of the British geographer are primarily at a high level of abstraction, very focused on the dynamics of planetary capitalism. There are local and national examples, but there is no in-depth analysis of the forms of capitalist organisation typical of Latin America. His studies are so abstract that they allow a radical critique of capitalism as a global phenomenon but do not require analysing the details of national or Latin American contexts. This is not a minor limitation, since Latin America is inserted into globalization primarily through its extractive exports, and that kind of specificity does not appear clearly in Harvey. The geographer’s emphasis is on much larger scales. Couldn’t this be one of the reasons why he is cited and invited by progressive governments?

Because many progressives do just that, they challenge international capitalism but without taking on the contradictions internal to capitalism itself, or they attack imperialism but are almost silent on the internal colonialism they impose on peasants and indigenous peoples. Harvey’s texts fit perfectly with this duality, allowing global critiques (with the symbolic advantages of his Marxist language), without requiring much on national predicaments. This is a duality that has not gone unnoticed at conferences by the geographer in Quito or La Paz.

A second problem is the limited attention that Harvey pays to the ecological dimension. There is a no local Nature, rooted in territories, but rather an abstract consideration of the environment. This is not surprising because this author has had many problems in considering the environmental dimension (for instance, he distrusts ecological limits to economic growth). But if we want to carry out a Latin American critique of capitalism, we must necessarily incorporate an ecological dimension, involving the role of natural resources as well as concepts such as Pacha Mama, ayllu or life-territories. The distinctive ecological features of our region are not found anywhere else. In addition, its principal developmentalist strategies rest on a massive extraction of natural resources, and therefore any analysis will be incomplete if these aspects are not considered.

Again I wonder if this limitation is not one of the reasons why progressive governments endorse Harvey, since it offers the possibility of radical discourse against capitalism but without addressing local ecological destruction, territorialized in each country. It is a very attractive theoretical crutch for a government that wants to criticise, for example, the transnational nature of corporations, without saying anything about their role in generating negative social and environmental impacts associated with resource extraction in their own countries. (As a warning to the reader, it must be recognised that in one of his visits to Quito, Harvey symbolically signed a petition by Yasunidos to request a public consultation for oil exploitation in the area of Yasuni, in the Ecuadorian Amazon).

A third point concerns the fact that Harvey pays little to no attention to the indigenous world. His discourse is committed to popular sectors, such as in cities in the northern hemisphere, but the knowledge and visions of indigenous people are almost nonexistent. It is a viewpoint informed by western and modern knowledge. I cannot find a place for the Ecuadorian sumak kawsay or the Bolivian suma qamaña in Harvey’s texts. A key reason is that the ways of understanding the concept of value are very different in this author and in the framework of Buen Vivir. Once again this offers a good reason for progressive governments’ invitations, because his ideas allow for a critique of capitalism while avoiding indigenous demands. International financialization and power asymmetries in relation to capital can be treated at length without having to consider indigenous voices. This is also an untenable position for the Latin American context.

My last point is that alternatives to capitalism are given very limited space in Harvey. He seems to fall into pessimism, in suggesting that the only solution would be to move from exchange value to use value. This is very similar to the discourse of various rulers who say, for example, that they must remain extractivist because there are no alternatives to global capitalism. It is quite understandable that Harvey would find in Latin American progressive governments a step towards the alternatives he seems to hope for, given that they certainly have positive aspects compared to the conservatism of the governments he has known for decades in Europe and the United States. But that’s not enough for Latin America, since we now have different references for comparison. Here again I cannot help to note the convenience for rulers to cite Harvey, since the alternatives he proposes are so abstract and distant in time that they can be embraced while continuing to negotiate with contemporary capitalism.

Nor should it be forgotten that in the continent there are civic organisations and reflections which explore much more substantial alternatives, not concerned exclusively with use value. The clearest example is the rights of Nature in Ecuador’s Constitution, which start from a recognition of Nature as a subject, and therefore with its own values. Here there is a huge theoretical gap in Harvey’s gaze, which many pretend not to see. For in Harvey’s classical Marxism there is value only in humans and their work, and therefore there is no room for the rights of Nature.

Recover our own thinking

As it can be seen from this brief review, the work of Harvey is good to discuss global capitalism, but it does not require addressing social, environmental or economic impacts within each country, or a dialogue with indigenous knowledge. It is very useful to understand the workings of Wall Street, but it misses what happens in our Amazon. Is comfortable for academics and progressive governments to quote Harvey (and something analogous happens with Tony Negri), as it allows them to adopt anti-capitalist discourses while skipping prickly issues such as the contradictions of the capital within the country. It is a type of analysis which allows them to avoid almost all thorny issues regarding their development strategies.

As I said above, this is not a problem with these authors; rather, we face limitations and contradictions in the creation of a thought that is specifically Latin American. We, Latin Americans, must carry this discussion forward, and not wait for Harvey, Negri or others to stimulate it. This does not mean they should be ignored, since in their writings there are many worthy and useful lessons which can contribute to our own debate. But this task should essentially be in our hands.

The problem with the abuse of the “Harvey fashion” is that such theoretical positions are friendly, and thus it is difficult for us to recognise their limitations. It is a weakness which is exploited precisely by those who want to silence debates about national contradictions or those who abuse academic power in order to limit reflections. This trend also reinforces a colonialism which searches in the “academic north” legitimisation and truths. In this way we hold onto a colonialism that hinders our own thinking and the possibility of exploring substantive alternatives.

To break this colonial fence, a critical look from a Latin American standpoint must always be anchored in national and local circumstances (it must be grounded), it must pay attention to the environmental implications (it must be ecological), it must necessarily incorporate and dialogue with indigenous peoples (it must be intercultural), and it must illuminate ideas and practices around alternatives to development (it must break the fence of Modernity).

*Eduardo Gudynas is a reseacher of the Latin American Centre for Social Ecology (CLAES), Montevideo. Twitter: @EGudynas. This piece was republished with the author’s permission from rebelión.org. Translation by Diego Andreucci and Melissa García Lamarca.

Share
Undisciplined Environments
Undisciplined Environments

Related posts

January 10, 2023

Biodiversity breakthrough or time to stop global environmental meetings altogether?


Read more
December 13, 2022

Formulating poisons: racism, agrochemicals, and cotton


Read more
November 1, 2022

Ocean Mourning – R.I.P. Mar


Read more

14 Comments

  1. Translation of “Neither colonists nor sympathetic: a response to Eduardo Gudynas” | My Desiring-Machines says:
    October 16, 2015 at 1:26 am

    […] UPDATE II, 10/15: The folks at the ENTITLE blog have published an English translation of Gudynas’s original article here. […]

    Reply
  2. Eduardo Gudynas, David Harvey, Ecuador and ‘sympathetic colonialism’ – links to Spanish/English versions of both texts | Progressive Geographies says:
    October 16, 2015 at 8:48 am

    […] Eduardo Gudynas has recently criticised David Harvey and his research team in Ecuador for ‘simpatico [sympathetic or friendly] colonialism’ (Spanish/English). […]

    Reply
  3. Gudynas and Harvey | ENTITLE blog says:
    October 20, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    […] the commentary of Eduardo Gudynas, on the careless reproduction of concepts from Western scholars to explicate environmental […]

    Reply
  4. simonbatterbury says:
    October 20, 2015 at 3:31 pm

    Sitting in Melbourne Australia with a group of my Latin American PhD and Masters students, and also my friend Tony Bebbington (who publishes as much in Spanish as English and has spent years in Latin America) I don’t find this critique totally convincing. I don’t see evidence of intellectual colonialism, which is the major accusation. . You can be exposed to academic work from many traditions, and still develop your own ideas! Adopting some of Harvey’s work does not mean it is followed to the detriment of a Latin American “tradition” of scholarship, or of localised knowledge. You will find my students and many like them, using both – as others like Arturo Escobar have done before them; taking from different traditions. They are addressing Ecuadorian sumak kawsay and diverse Colombian indigenous identities and livelihoods alongside Harvey-esque issues describing asymmetries like accumulation and the arrival and effects of neoliberalism (and they also consider womens’ rights and issues and scholarship, not mentioned in the article at all). They are very aware of the limitations of supposed progressive governments and their actual support for resource extraction, as well – as are most Latin American scholars. For an example – http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/5/3/2158244015596792 .
    I think Latin American students and scholars are more discerning that Gudynas gives them credit for – they will work out the traction and the viability of different theories and ideas themselves, inside and outside the continent and in different languages, while also doing some excellent political ecology along the way. My visits to Latin American universities have left me very impressed in this regard.
    Also, Harvey is now 79 years old, so I for one am happy that he still produces general ideas that we can still discuss and use. As do many other scholars.

    Reply
  5. The Gudynas/Harvey controversy: Friendly colonialism? Rosa Luxemburg Foundation says:
    October 28, 2015 at 2:27 pm

    […] *Eduardo Gudynas is a reseacher of the Latin American Centre for Social Ecology (CLAES), Montevideo. Twitter: @EGudynas. Translation by Diego Andreucci and Melissa García Lamarca, Entitle blog […]

    Reply
  6. ¿Puede Gudynas salvarse del colonialismo simpático? | ENTITLE blog says:
    November 5, 2015 at 2:49 pm

    […] la atención del intelectual marxista David Harvey, calificando su producción teórica como  ´colonialismo  simpático´, me pregunto si lo que insinúa Gudynas es que la ´realidad´ latinoamericana solo puede ser […]

    Reply
  7. ¿Puede Gudynas salvarse del colonialismo simpático? - says:
    November 5, 2015 at 10:52 pm

    […] la atención del intelectual marxista David Harvey, calificando su producción teórica como  ´colonialismo  simpático´, me pregunto si lo que insinúa Gudynas es que la ´realidad´ latinoamericana solo puede ser […]

    Reply
  8. ¿PUEDE GUDYNAS SALVARSE DEL COLONIALISMO SIMPÁTICO? *Por Lucía Gallardo | says:
    November 10, 2015 at 11:23 pm

    […] la atención del intelectual marxista David Harvey, calificando su producción teórica como  ´colonialismo simpático´, me pregunto si lo que insinúa Gudynas es que la ´realidad´ latinoamericana solo puede ser […]

    Reply
  9. “Friendly” colonialism and the contradictions of progressive governments | ENTITLE blog says:
    November 26, 2015 at 2:05 pm

    […] ago I shared some reflections on how some governments and progressive intellectuals who take ideas from the Global left, and use […]

    Reply
  10. Top ENTITLE blog posts of 2015 | ENTITLE blog says:
    January 5, 2016 at 10:01 am

    […] 4. Friendly colonialism and the ‘Harvey fashion’, by Eduardo Gudynas. […]

    Reply
  11. F. Javier Bonilla says:
    February 3, 2016 at 9:39 pm

    Reblogged this on historia pública and commented:
    Gudynas.

    Reply
  12. Corrientes, colonialismos y contradicciones | ENTITLE blog says:
    February 4, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    […] presencia e influencia de los y las intelectuales del norte en los países del sur forman parte de los proyectos coloniales imperialistas de los países ricos del norte. Esta […]

    Reply
  13. “We Are the Inferno” : A Conversation on the Anarchist Roots of Geography – The Internet Yard says:
    August 10, 2017 at 2:51 pm

    […] this context, Eduardo Gudynas for example has called the “great man” thinking or what he terms “Harvey fashion” into question, suggesting that it represents a form of intellectual colonialism. In that regard, […]

    Reply
  14. “We Are the Inferno” A Conversation on the Anarchist Roots of Geography | CrimethInc. says:
    August 10, 2017 at 5:28 pm

    […] this context, Eduardo Gudynas for example has called the “great man” thinking or what he terms “Harvey fashion” into question, suggesting that it represents a form of intellectual colonialism. In that regard, […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Search this site

✕

Subscribe to our Newsfeed

We keep your data private and share your data only with third parties that make this service possible. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Tags

Agriculture Alternatives Anthropocene Art Brazil Capitalism Cities Climate change Climate crisis Climate justice Colonialism, Post-colonialism & Decolonization Commoning Commons Conflicts Conservation & Biodiversity COVID-19 Culture Decolonial Political Ecologies Degrowth Democracy Development Disaster Energy Environmental Change Environmental History Environmental Justice Environmental movements Extractivism Food Forests Green inequalities Indigenous Peoples Land Methodologies Mining & Extractivism Movements & Resistance Neoliberalism Post-colonialism Post-colonialism & Decolonization Social Movements & Resistance Urban Violence Waste Water water governance

Visit WEGO

wegoint.org
This website is co-funded by WEGO

Popular Posts

  • Biodiversity breakthrough or time to stop global environmental meetings altogether? 561 views
  • The trouble with rewilding… 251 views
  • About refrigerators 152 views
  • Against the misrepresentation of climate activism in Lützerath aka the ZAD Rhineland 122 views
  • What does virtual water conceal? 119 views
  • A comprehensive political ecology reading list 88 views

Recent Comments

  • January 4, 2023

    Timo commented on Against the misrepresentation of climate activism in Lützerath aka the ZAD Rhineland

  • November 15, 2022

    Connecting academic (air) mobility with carbon inequality: Perspectives from a Global South scholar - Bliss commented on Connecting academic (air) mobility with carbon inequality: Perspectives from a Global South scholar

  • November 8, 2022

    On the Racist Humanism of Climate Action - Bliss commented on Challenging extractivism

  • November 8, 2022

    On the Racist Humanism of Climate Action - Bliss commented on How new is the Green New Deal for the Global South?

  • November 7, 2022

    Summer break note 2022 – Undisciplined Environments commented on Reconceptualising boundaries *

  • November 4, 2022

    Undisciplined Environments commented on Environmental Inequalities in Cairo’s Urban Housing Sector

✕

Tags

Agriculture Alternatives Anthropocene Art Brazil Capitalism Cities Climate change Climate crisis Climate justice Colonialism, Post-colonialism & Decolonization Commoning Commons Conflicts Conservation & Biodiversity COVID-19 Culture Decolonial Political Ecologies Degrowth Democracy Development Disaster Energy Environmental Change Environmental History Environmental Justice Environmental movements Extractivism Food Forests Green inequalities Indigenous Peoples Land Methodologies Mining & Extractivism Movements & Resistance Neoliberalism Post-colonialism Post-colonialism & Decolonization Social Movements & Resistance Urban Violence Waste Water water governance

Follow us

facebook       twitter
E-Mail Us : undisciplinedenvironments@gmail.com

Contribute

If you want to contribute send us your text at undisciplinedenvironments@gmail.com
Find our posting guide here

About Us

We are a collective of scholars and activists oriented towards a common horizon of emancipatory social and ecological transformation. With this platform, we aim to animate a space to share, debate and critically reflect on research and activist experiences, observations, methodologies, news, events, publications, art, music and other themes and objects related to political ecology.
powered by andromedia
  • About Us
  • Essays
  • Series
  • Resources
  • Events and Calls
  • Art & multimedia
  • Contribute
go