Evolution of environmental discourse in Latin America: traditions and innovations
Reviews
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)


Views
117


Downloads
11
Date of publication
08.02.2021
Public year
2021
DOI
10.31857/S0044748X0013151-5
Evolution of environmental discourse in Latin America: traditions and innovations
Read   Download pdf
About

In this article, the author continues his attempts to theoretically substantiate the peculiarities of the ecological discourse in the region, that was undertaken earlier in the journal "Russian Political Science". The task at hand is to reflect the changes that have occurred in the content of environmental discourse, including its variations on Latin American soil. The rental model of the economy against the background of the “commodity boom” in the countries of the studied region was supplemented by the so-called “consensus of commodities”. This process brings its own adjustments to the interpretation of environmental discourse, not only actualizes it, but also politicizes it in the socio-political agenda. Curiously enough, this feature applies to many countries with rich natural resources. The author's goal is to show how these processes were included in the structure of the «eco-territorial turn» what is experienced in the region.

About authors
Alexandr Shinkarenko
Senior fellow research
Institute of Latin American Studies Russian Academy of Sciences
References

1. Ionova A.O. Sovremennye podkhody k analizu politich-eskogo diskursa [Modern approaches to the analysis of political discourse]. Politicheskaya nauka. 2016, N 3, pp. 236-259 (In Russ.).

2. Okunev I.Yu. Kriticheskaya geopolitika i postkriticheskii sdvig v issledovatel'skoi paradigme geo-politiki [Critical Geopolitics and Post-Critical Shift in the Research Paradigm of Geopolitics]. Sravnitel'naya politika. Moscow, 2014, N 4 (16-17), pp. 6–14. (In Russ.)

3. Lyakhovenko O.I. Kontseptsii kriticheskoi geopolitiki Dzh. O Toala: na puti k osmysleniyu geopolitiki KhKhI veka [J. O‘Toal’s Critical Geopolitics Concepts: Towards Understanding the Geopolitics of the 21st Century]. Sravnitel'naya politika. M., 2014, N 4 (16-17), pp.15-20 (In Russ.).

4. Geopolitical conditions of postmodernity: states, governance and security in the new millennium] (In Russ.). Available at: http://www.intelros.ru/pdf/Geopolitic/2013_XIX/11.pdf (accessed 15.10.2017).

5. Dubrovskaya T.V., Kalenova O.G. K probleme opredeleniya ekologicheskogo diskursa i ego zhanrov. [On the problem of defining ecological discourse and its genres]. Nauchnyĭ vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo arkhitekturno-stroitel'nogo universi-teta. Lingvistika i mezhkul'turnaya kommunikatsiya. Voronezh, 2015, N 2(16), pp. 6-12. (In Russ.).

6. Nietschmann B. The Fourth World: Nations Versus States. Reordering The World. Geopolitical Perspectives on the Twenty-first century/ Ed. by G.J. Demko and W.B. Wood. Westview, 1994, pp. 225- 242.

7. Gudynas E. Buen Vivir: Today’s tomorrow. Development, 2011, 54(4), pp. 441–447.

8. Santos T. Buen Vivir o Desarrollo?. Vistazo, 09.08.2016 Available at: https://www.academia.edu/28163891/_BUEN_VIVIR_O_DESARROLLO (accessed 15.05.2020).

9. Kostogryzov P.I. Ideologiya Suma Kaman'ya v politike tsennostei levoindekhinistkogo rezhima E. Moralesa [The Ideology of Suma Qamaña in the Value Policy of the Left-Independent Regime of E. Morales]. Vestnik Permskogo Universiteta. Istoriya. Perm', 2019, N 4 (47). pp. 30–40. DOI: 10.17072/2219-3111-2019-4-30-40 (In Russ.).

10. Vorotnikova T.A. Levye rezhimy v Bolivii i Ekvadore: desyat' otlichii. [Leftist regimes in Bolivia and Ecuador: ten differences]. Latinskaya Amerika. Moscow, 2019, N 11. pp. 15–20. DOI 10.31857/S0044748X0006895-3 (In Russ.).

11. Kostogryzov P. I. Latinoamerikanskaya model' mnogonatsional'nogo gosudarstva [Latin American model of a multinational state]. Konstitutsionnoe i munitsipal'noe pravo. Moscow, 2019, N 8, pp. 66-69. (In Russ.).

12. Martynova M.Yu. Novaya konstitutsiya Ekvadora: sotsializm XXI veka [Ecuador's new constitution: 21st century socialism]. Pravo i upravlenie XXI vek. Moscow, 2009, N 2 (11), pp. 69-80 (In Russ.).

13. Chassagne N. Buen Vivir as an Alternative to Sustainable Development: Lessons from Ecuador, Routledge, 2020, 192 p.

14. Swyngedouw E. Impossible/Undesirable Sustainability and the Post-Political Condition. The Sustainable Development Paradox /Rob Krueger and David Gibbs (eds.), New York: Guilford Press, 2007, pp. 13–40.

15. Kothari A., Demaria F., Acosta A. Buen Vivir, Degrowth and Ecological Swaraj: Alternatives to sustainable development and the Green Economy. Development, 2014, 57(3–4), pp. 362-375.

16. Buen Vivir and the Challenges to Capitalism in Latin America. Ed. by H. Veltmeyer, E. Zayago Lau, Routledge, 2020, 232 p.

17. Chuji M., Rengifo G., Gudynas E. Buen Vivir. Pluriverse. A Post-Development Dictionary. New Delhi, 2019, pp. 111-114.

18. Samarkina I. K. Obshchina v Peru. Ocherk sotsial'no-ekononomicheskogo razvitiya [Community in Peru. Sketch of socio-economic development]. Moscow: Nauka, 1974, 249 p. (In Russ.).

19. Svampa M. «Concenso de los Commodities» y lenguajes de valoración en América Latina. Nueva Sociedad, 2013, Marzo-Abril.

20. Svampa M. Modelo de Desarrollo y cuestión ambiental en América Latina: categorías escenarios en disputa. El desarrollo en cuestión: reflexiones desde América Latina. La Paz: CIDES / UMSA, 2011.

21. Lalander R. Entre el ecocentrismo y el pragmatismo ambiental: Consideraciones inductivas sobre desarrollo, extractivismo y los derechos de la naturaleza en Bolivia y Ecuador. Revista Chilena de Derecho y Ciencia Política, 2015, Enero-Abril, pp. 109-152.

22. Vorotnikova T.A. Contradicciones campesino-indígenas en Bolivia contemporánea. Iberoamérica, Moscow, 2018, № 1, pp. 120-142.

23. Ilyín I., Ursul A. Dimensión global de la transición latinoamericana al desarrollo sostenible. Iberoamérica, Moscow, 2020, № 2, pp. 5-25.