|email@example.com||# Posted on September 9, 2014 at 13:17|
I was intrigued by the question of whether a successful environmental history can be written using the nation as the preferred scale.
I feel that trying to understand environmental history, or issues of biodiversity must almost always involve a level of awareness of the nation-state(s). Libby makes the point that ‘responses to environmental crises are not necessarily scientific, but are just as likely to be political or provided by management or policy framework 26’. She goes on to say that achieving the goal of conservation (a healthy ecosystem) demands amongst other things ‘a good measure of political will’ 26. Libby also makes the point that research itself is often dictated by funding from national governments, and journals have nationalist biases. Certainly restricting ones scope to the nation level and not incorporating other scales of analysis is not ideal blanket advice for all research endeavors. However, it is good to be aware of the political frameworks that impact environmental history, many of which are cast at the nation-state level. In addition, the manner in which research is conducted and results disseminated also have nationalist biases and casting ones gaze on those mechanisms can be very informative. Certainly the nation can be the main scale of examination when writing an environmental history, and while situating this discourse within global and regional contexts can add to the process it isn’t necessary.
Reply To: September 8th: History, Conservation and politics, the example of Australia
Start › Forums › Courses › Current Debates and Themes in Global Environmental History › September 8th: History, Conservation and politics, the example of Australia › Reply To: September 8th: History, Conservation and politics, the example of Australia