Environmental justice as a (potentially) hegemonic concept: a historical look at competing interests between the MST and indigenous people in Brazil

ABSTRACT

This article explores the need to recognise and compensate the plurality of environmental justice claims, while paying close attention to the outcomes of the most marginalised groups – cultural and ecological – in political decision-making to avoid vestiges of hegemony. The early history of the Movimiento dos Trabalhadores Rurais sem Terra (MST) serves as a case study in which environmental justice claims clash with indigenous rights claims. In recent decades, the MST has refused settling Amazonian indigenous territories, consistent with the organisation’s Via Campesina platform, which focuses on redistributing the 50% of national territory controlled privately by Brazil’s richest 4%. Yet, in the 1970s and early 1980s, Brazil’s military government pitted landless peasants and indigenous people’s struggles against each other, circumventing land reform potentially disruptive to the country’s de facto colonial fazenda land system. This tactic pressured competing groups – landless peasants and indigenous people – to fight against each other, concluding predictably: the most powerful factions ended up getting their way, conceding less in negotiations than their less-advantageously positioned, marginalised counterparts. When marginalised groups gain concessions in environmental justice struggles, often the goods comprising those concessions come at a cost to marginalised groups with even less political visibility. Hegemonic structures of power remain non-negotiable in the process of alleviating other injustices in perceived zero-sum politics. Such systemic displacement and dispersion of violence in systems built on violence suggests hegemony affects not just to other marginalised groups, but to nonhumans too.     

Making Progress? Reproducing Hegemony Through Discourses of “Sustainable Development” in the Australian News Media

While numerous studies have investigated discourses of “sustainable development” in a variety of institutional and academic contexts, media discourses on this issue have remained largely unexamined. But considering the intertwined nature of media and society, the construction of sustainable development in the news may be an important factor shaping future ecological and social outcomes. Proceeding from the thesis that the news is a site in which hegemony may be reproduced, this paper critically analyses discourses used to construct sustainable development in news texts published over the 10-year period 2004–2013 across the eight most widely circulated newspapers in Australia. The findings show that sustainable development news is confined to a narrow range of discourses that largely serve to perpetuate the status quo, which is broadly consistent with the media hegemony thesis. Finally, I discuss the implications of these findings, propose possible explanations, and explore avenues for future research.     

Disaster studies inside out

Disaster studies is faced with a fascinating anomaly: frequently it claims to be critical and innovative, as suggested by the so‐called vulnerability paradigm that emerged more than 40 years ago, yet often it is perpetuating some of the core and problematic tenets of the hazard paradigm that we were asked to challenge initially. This paper interrogates why such an anomaly persists. In so doing, it employs Antonio Gramsci's concept of hegemony to unpack why disaster studies is still dominated by Western epistemologies and scholars that perpetuate an orientalist view of disasters. Ultimately, it suggests a research agenda for the 40 years to come, which builds on the importance of local researchers analysing local disasters using local epistemologies, especially in the non‐Western world. Such subaltern disaster studies are to be fuelled by increasing consciousness of the need to resist the hegemony of Western scholarship and to relocate disaster studies within the realm of its original political agenda.