Theme issue article Nature and Space

EPE: Nature and Space

0(0) 1–11
Beyond the green panopticon: ! The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
New directions in research sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2514848620920743
exploring environmental journals.sagepub.com/home/ene

governmentality

Robert Fletcher
Wageningen University & Research, the Netherlands

Jose A Cortes-Vazquez
University of A Coru~na, Spain

Abstract
This introduction to the special collection explores how a revised or expanded understanding of
‘environmentality’ can further our analysis of the evermore complex terrain of environmental
politics today. We offer an outline of the literature from which the discussion emerges and how
the subsequent articles both engage with and depart from it. We describe the origin of the ‘green
governmentality’ discussion following the rise of global sustainable development discourse. We
then explain how this initial exploration was subsequently complicated by introduction of two
further lines of investigation: (1) attention to the micropolitics of community-based natural
resource management; and (2) extrapolation from this to describe the different forms of
green governmentality within which such local practices are situated as well as the multiple
scales at which environmental governance is exercised. Following this, we outline a range of
critiques to which this burgeoning research has also been subject and the fruitful lines of future
research to which they point. We finish by describing how the various contributions to this
collection engage with different aspects of this multifaceted discussion as the basis for further
engagement by other researchers in the years ahead.

Keywords
Governmentality, environmentality, environmental governance, Foucault, panopticon

Corresponding author:
Robert Fletcher, Sociology of Development and Change Group, Wageningen University & Research, De Leeuwenborch,
Hollandseweg 1, 6707 KN Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Email: robert.fletcher@wur.nl
2 EPE: Nature and Space 0(0)

Introduction
While Foucault famously claimed to have little interest in nonhuman natures (see Darier,
1999), over the past several decades diverse aspects of his vast oeuvre have been productively
mined to help illuminate how such natures are understood and engaged by the human
subjects with whom Foucault was preoccupied. This work includes interrogating environ-
mentalism as a series of discourses (e.g. Brosius, 1999; Darier, 1996; Escobar, 1995; Nygren,
1998) and identifying the exercise of biopower in claims to save ‘natural’ spaces and to
implement conservation/development programmes (e.g. Biermann and Anderson, 2017; Li,
2007). One of the most prolific and productive applications of Foucauldian thought to
ecological politics draws on his ‘governmentality’ analytic to describe a ‘green governmen-
tality’ or ‘environmentality’ within processes of environmental governance. Foucault (1991)
introduced governmentality (or the synonymous term ‘art of government’) as a neologism to
describe how (principally state) authorities seek to ‘conduct the conduct’ of
subject populations in conformance with governmental aims. Applied to the environmental
realm, such dynamics were identified in the rise of the global environmental governance
infrastructure following the 1992 Rio Summit (Darier, 1996; Luke, 1999a) as well as
analysis of the ‘intimate governance’ at work in community-based natural resource man-
agement (CBNRM) initiatives (Agrawal, 2005a, 2005b; Neumann, 2001; Sundar, 2001).
Subsequent researchers then took this line of inquiry in new directions, both critiquing
aspects of earlier analyses and advancing novel ways in which the green governmentality
lens can be understood and employed (Wang, 2015). In this way, Rutherford (2007)
observed in her review of the burgeoning green governmentality literature published more
than a decade ago, ‘governmentality offers promising analytical terrain to geographers [and
others] who make it their business to interrogate the intersections between nature, power
and society’ (291–292).
Building on this fertile base, contributions to this special collection explore how a revised
or expanded understanding of environmentality can further our analysis of the evermore
complex terrain of environmental politics today. In this introduction to the collection, we
offer an outline of the literature from which the discussion emerges and how the subsequent
articles both engage with and depart from it. We begin by describing the origin of the green
governmentality discussion following the rise of global sustainable development discourse.
We then explain how this initial exploration was subsequently complicated by introduction
of two further lines of investigation: (1) attention to the micropolitics of CBNRM and (2)
extrapolation from this to describe the different forms of green governmentality within
which such local practices are situated as well as the multiple scales at which environmental
governance is exercised. Following this, we outline a range of critiques to which this bur-
geoning research has also been subject and the fruitful lines of future research to which they
point. We finish by describing how the various contributions to this collection engage with
different aspects of this multifaceted discussion as the basis for further engagement by other
researchers in the years ahead.

The green panopticon and beyond

This is not the place to rehearse the origin and diffusion of the governmentality concept
generally as this has already been done quite well elsewhere (see, e.g. Lemke, 2016; Rose
et al., 2006; Rutherford, 2007). Instead we focus on how the concept has been applied to
understand environmental governance specifically, building on the foundation provided by
Fletcher and Cortes-Vazquez 3

Rutherford (2007) in her own previous review of this literature to chart new developments in
the decade since that paper’s publication.
Analysis of environmental politics as a form of ‘environmental governmentality’, ‘green
governmentality’, or ‘environmentality’ (the three terms have been used interchangeably
from the outset) began soon after the global environmental governance architecture was
erected as part of the sustainable development movement cemented via the United Nations
World Conference on Environment and Development staged in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (see
Darier, 1996; Luke, 1995a, 1995b, 1999a, 1999b). Thus, Timothy Luke (1999a) could assert
at the turn of the millennium that ‘most environmentalist movements now operate as a basic
manifestation of governmentality’ (121). In the current century, Agrawal (2005a, 2005b) and
others (e.g. Neumann, 2001; Sundar, 2001) expanded the discussion by extending the envi-
ronmentality analytic in particular to describe processes of intimate governance at work in
CBNRM initiatives intended to create ‘environmental subjects – people who care about the
environment’ (Agrawal, 2005b: 162). Expanding the discussion still further, others have
drawn attention to governmentality’s previously neglected ‘aleatory’ dimensions, that is,
‘those elements of risk, chance and contingency that cannot be fully controlled, but can
be calculated and the adverse effects thereof mitigated through what Foucault calls appa-
ratuses of security’ (Clarke-Sather, 2017: 93; see also Alatout, 2013).
Whether focused on global or local levels, most of this work, as Rutherford (2007) notes,
tended to understand environmental governmentality as ‘pointing to the panoptic nature of
the green project’ (296). This framing of environmental governance as a green panopticon of
course reflects the conventional interpretation of governmentality more generally as
embodying Foucault’s (1977) famous disciplinary mode of power introduced in Discipline
and Punish, in terms of which subjects are encouraged to internalize norms and values by
means of which they self-regulate as well as enforce compliance by others via social sanc-
tions. The equivalency between this disciplinary power and governmentality is commonly
read through the talk extracted from Foucault’s 1977 College de France lecture series
wherein the latter concept was first introduced (Foucault, 1991). In this lecture, Foucault
(1991) outlined his famous ‘triangle, sovereignty-discipline-government, which has as its
primary target the population and as its essential mechanism the apparatuses of security’
(102). Despite the clear opposition between discipline and government in this initial formu-
lation, the wealth of subsequent research that seized upon this discussion to found the by-
now vast body of governmentality studies largely interpreted this formulation to depict
governmentality as enacting a form of disciplinary power in its own right.
The lecture series from which the famous governmentality essay was excerpted was finally
published in English in 2007 under the title Security, Territory, Population (Foucault, 2007).
This extended discussion revealed that after first introducing the governmentality concept,
Foucault (2007) continued to define and redefine it through subsequent talks. The English
publication of the following year’s lecture series (as The Birth of Biopolitics) showed him
refining the concept still further (Foucault, 2008). In these lectures, Foucault (2008) began
by outlining what he termed a novel neoliberal governmentality, which he described as ‘an
environmental type of intervention instead of the internal subjugation of individuals’ (260);
‘a governmentality which will act on the environment and systematically modify its varia-
bles’ (271). In this way, Foucault specifically opposes this approach to a conventional (dis-
ciplinary) understanding of governmentality as concerned precisely with the ‘internal
subjugation of individuals’. In Foucault’s conception, by contrast, neoliberal governmental-
ity dispenses with concern for subjects’ internal states and instead ‘seeks merely to create
external incentive structures within which individuals, understood as self-interested rational
4 EPE: Nature and Space 0(0)

actors, can be motivated to exhibit appropriate behaviours through manipulation of incen-

tives’ (Fletcher, 2010: 17).
Foucault (2008) then went on to outline several additional forms of governmentality,
such that by the end of this series (the last time he discussed governmentality explicitly) he
had dramatically reconfigured the term to describe not one, but multiple forms of govern-
mentality that, he claimed, ‘overlap, lean on each other, challenge each other, and struggle
with each other’ (313) within different contexts and institutions. There exist, Foucault (2008)
thus asserted, four primary forms of governmentality, which he defined as ‘art of govern-
ment according to truth, art of government according to the rationality of the sovereign
state, and art of government according to the rationality of economic agents, and more
generally according to the rationality of the governed themselves’ (313).
Elsewhere Fletcher (2010) summarizes these as sovereign, disciplinary, neoliberal and truth
governmentalities, a typology he then uses to complicate the monolithic environmentality
concept employed by Agrawal to instead describe a similar diversity in arts of environmental
governance. This typology has been productively employed by subsequent researchers to
identify diverse overlapping forms of environmentality in contexts and processes throughout
the world (for an overview, see Fletcher, 2017a, 2017b). Others have diversified the field still
further by advancing novel forms of environmentality beyond Foucault’s original catego-
ries, including Boer’s (2017) attribution of a ‘welfare’ environmentality to governance of the
Reduced Emissions through avoided Deforestation and land Degradation (REDDþ) mech-
anism in Indonesia; Lorimer’s (2017) identification of ‘probiotic’ environmentalities in
increasingly popular ‘rewilding’ efforts; and Rutherford’s (2011) description of a range of
entirely different governmentalities (scientific, corporate, aesthetic and ethical) across sites
of environmental knowledge production and representation in North America.1

Environmentality undermined
Despite its rapidly growing popularity and creative extension into new domains and dynam-
ics, environmentality research is not without its critics. Among other issues, detractors
frequently fault application of the concept for assuming that governance efforts tend to
succeed in their aims when in reality such success is usually partial and piecemeal.
Consequently, analysis in terms of environmentality is often seen to focus excessively on
the top-down exercise of power and thus neglect the creative ways that subalterns resist,
reconfigure and exercise their own forms of governance autonomous of or in opposition to
external authority (Cepek, 2011; Faye, 2016; Forsyth and Walker, 2014; Haller et al., 2016;
Jessop et al., 2012; Silva, 2015; Singh, 2013). This indeed reflects a common feature of
governmentality studies more generally, which as Rose (1999) points out tend to ‘to start
by asking what authorities of various sorts wanted to happen, in relation to problems
defined how, in pursuit of what objectives, through what strategies and techniques’ rather
than ‘what happened and why’ (20).
Various strategies are proposed to correct for this bias. Some consider this a clear limit to
utility of the environmentality perspective in understanding how governance actually func-
tions in concrete situations (Cepek, 2011; Forsyth and Walker, 2014; Singh, 2013). Others
turn to different aspects of Foucault’s work, such as his focus on ‘resistance’, ‘counter-
conduct’ or ‘technologies of the self’, to describe bottom-up dynamics beyond governmen-
tality as conventionally conceptualized (Asiyanbi et al., 2019; Nepomuceno et al., 2019).
Still others point out that in developing his multiple governmentalities framework, Foucault
(2008) himself had briefly introduced the potential for an additional art of government
(which he described as ‘a strictly, intrinsically, and autonomously socialist governmentality’
Fletcher and Cortes-Vazquez 5

(94)), distinct from the top-down forms he had previously elaborated – a dynamic that could
be further developed to enable a multiple environmentalities perspective to encompass forms
of organic organization as well (see Ferguson, 2011; Fletcher, 2010, 2017a). And still others,
finally, assert the need for new concepts to describe such locally driven dynamics, such as the
idea of ‘constitutionality’ advanced by Haller et al. (2016, 2018).
A further limitation of the environmentalities framework highlighted by critics is its
tendency to neglect detailed analysis of the process by which subject formation is actually
achieved (or is not) via the governance techniques intended to effect this. This was, of
course, a central focus of Agrawal’s analysis, yet his attention to the disciplinary processes
he describes in creating ‘environmental subjects’ has rarely been replicated in other studies,
particularly those employing a multiple environmentalities approach. This neglect is begin-
ning to be redressed by a spate of recent studies (e.g. Collins, 2019; Cortes-Vazquez and
Ruiz-Ballesteros, 2018) but remains insufficiently explored.
A final point of contention follows from the emphasis of Foucault’s own analyses on
social processes and actors rather than the nonhumans with whom people are entangled.
This lack of serious consideration of the role of nonhumans in shaping environmental
politics is a critique that has been levelled at social scientific studies of such politics more
generally (Hommes et al., 2020; Srinivasan and Kasturirangan, 2016; Whatmore, 2006). Yet
others suggest that this inattention is not inherent in Foucault’s (2007) approach, and that
his explicit recognition that governance entails the ‘imbrication of men [sic] and things’ (97)
offers an entry point for inclusion of nonhumans within a governmentality perspective
(Lemke, 2015). To date, however, this potential has yet to be developed.

Outline of the collection

The nine articles comprising this special collection build on this previous work to take the
discussion in a number of productive new directions in relation to diverse cases from around
the world. These directions include pursuing suggestive new forms of analysing the frequent
gap between environmentality projects (what authorities want to happen and the strategies
through which they pursue envisioned ends) and the formation of environmental subjects
(what actually happens in the course of resulting activities); exploring the opportunities
opened up by a multiple environmentalities framework for a more complex and historically
nuanced understanding of different forms of environmental governance; and undertaking
new methodological, analytical and conceptual reformulations that strengthen the environ-
mentality approach. Inspired by these contributions we can outline a number of potential
lines of future research that further interventions might also develop and deepen.

Extending multiple environmentalities

A first line of research could continue to test the extent to which constellations of Foucault’s
multiple governmentalities can be identified within existing environmental policies, practices
and institutions. Pursuing this strategy, Jesse Montes (2020) leads off the collection by
exploring how Bhutan’s celebrated Gross National Happiness (GNH) policy can be under-
stood as a confluence of different approaches to conducting citizens’ conduct. Montes finds
that the language of variegated neoliberalism has some limits when applied to neoliberal
conservation specifically. This is why he sees potential in the multiple environmentalities
framework in helping to explain how neoliberal conservation interacts and coalesces with
other governmental logics. He argues that an increasing influence of neoliberal environ-
mentality in particular can be observed in the way that GNH is currently harnessed to
6 EPE: Nature and Space 0(0)

integrate Bhutan into global economic markets and promote market-based mechanisms like
ecotourism as the basis for a liberalized regime of environmental governance. Yet Montes
qualifies that this neoliberalization manifests in context-specific ways which demonstrate the
persistence of pre-existing governmentalities in GNH implementation as well. In this way,
his analysis pushes the boundaries of discussion of neoliberalism as a ‘variegated’ process
(cf. Brenner et al., 2010) by demonstrating how analysis in these terms can be complemented
by attention to the different environmentalities with which neoliberalism may intersect in
concrete policy and practice.
Ariadne Collins (2020) continues this focus on neoliberalism by framing implementation
of the REDDþ mechanism in Guyana and Suriname as a quintessential expression of
neoliberal environmentality. Yet she complicates analysis in these terms by demonstrating
how promotion of REDDþ in both countries is shaped by particular historical contexts
within which very different arts of governance predominated previously. Collins therefore
describes REDDþ in practice as a confluence of all four of Foucault’s governmentalities,
each of which play a role in how REDDþ actually seeks to conduct in the present. Like
Montes, Collins recognizes the utility of the multiple environmentality framework in per-
mitting us to understand variegated governmental strategies. However, she points out that
such analyses have usually been pursued in a static rather than diachronic frame, impeding a
proper ‘archaeology’ of the historical juxtapositions, merging and/or overlapping of differ-
ent environmentalities. She advocates adoption of a more temporal perspective to appreci-
ate environmentalities’ dynamism and how new modalities might borrow, rather than (re)
create, existing forms of governance.
Subsequently, Meg Youdelis (2020) turns our attention to Canada to describe contem-
porary conservation governance within Jasper National Park as a form of ‘post-politics’
constituting an art of governance in its own right. Departing from the common identifica-
tion of multiple environmentalities within a particular policy or institution, she shows how
different environmentalities manifest at different scales, with sovereign, disciplinary and
neoliberal tactics combining to produce a situation in which stakeholders are discouraged
from political participation or from questioning the neoliberal consensus. Rather than
merely describing the intersection of multiple environmentalities, in other words, Youdelis
demonstrates how they unite in pursuit of an ultimate policy goal – in this case, a post-
political conservation. She ends on a more hopeful note by describing how an aborted
attempt to subvert this post-political reality might form the seed of an alternative liberatory
environmentality at some point in the future.
A further potential of the multiple environmentalities framework for future research is
highlighted by Josephine Chambers, Margarita Del Aguila Mejıa, Raydith Ramırez
Reátegui and Chris Sandbrook (2020), who argue that a focus on different arts of govern-
ment not only helps to elucidate how they are successful in forging new subjectivities, but
also the reasons why they so often fail in this aim. The authors take us to Peru to explore
why, despite pervasive ‘win-win’ rhetoric, conservation interventions commonly fail in their
goals to achieve both environmental protection and economic development. They argue that
a multiple environmentalities perspective helps to explain this dynamic by illuminating the
correspondence (or lack thereof) between the governance approaches promoted by different
organizations and the ways these are understood and negotiated by local programme par-
ticipants. Methodologically, they advocate closer attention to variegated environmentalities
as a process – a process by which benefits are framed and distributed, and meaning is
generated; by which laws and norms are socially constructed and given meaning as they
are defined, developed and interpreted; and, finally, by which new values may become
integrated with existing values in unplanned ways within both individual subjects and
Fletcher and Cortes-Vazquez 7

communal spaces. The authors also highlight a number of common reasons that interven-
tions tend to fall short of intended aims, regardless of which governance approaches are
intended to be implemented.
In their papers, both Chambers et al. and Youdelis raise another key issue: that rather
than simply focusing on how variegated environmentality projects are made to work at the
local level, we also need to explore how they are reproduced globally. While this scale of
analysis was the focus of early work on environmentality (e.g. Luke, 1999a), it was then
largely replaced by an emphasis on case study analysis at local scale. Future work will thus
need to revive this more birds-eye perspective and explore how different environmentalities
are forged, combined and circulate globally.
Within this first line of research, finally, Lena Hommes, Rutgerd Boelens, Sonja Bleeker,
Didi Stoltenborg, Bibiana Duarte-Abadıa and Jeroen Vos explore not only how variegated
environmentalities combine within cases of water supply infrastructure in Colombia, Per u
and Mexico, but also the role that infrastructures and other nonhuman material technolo-
gies play in the configuration of governmentalized territories. Through an analysis of how
certain rural territories become subject to governmental projects that define them as water
sources for urban areas, the authors demonstrate the usefulness of the environmentality lens
in revealing the diverse ways through which power is exercised and how ‘hidden’ and ‘invis-
ible’ forms of subjectification are cemented in material technology and artefacts such as
hydraulic infrastructures (waterways, dams, etc.). Their comparative analysis of three dif-
ferent cases in these three countries also allows them to explore how affected water users and
rural dwellers accept, negotiate and/or contest the variegated exercise of power in water
transfer interventions to which they are subject.

Defining new environmentalities

A second line of research might build on recent research exploring new ways and forms via
which the environmentality lens can be productively amplified to understand ecological
politics. While several authors, like Youdelis, make explicit reference this debate in exam-
ining how people remake and advance their own environmentalities outside of the typology
of existing forms, new research could focus on conceptualizing new modes of environmen-
tality that depart to differing degrees from the by-now conventional toolbox.
Alexander Cullen’s (2020) paper offers interesting insights in this regard. Proposing a novel
‘transitional environmentality’, Cullen explores the characteristics of unsettled environmental
projects in contexts where the relationship between the state and subjects is in flux. Focusing
on the case of national parks in post-conflict Timor-Leste, he highlights a unique context of
evolving state and subject formation that, he contends, falls outside of the diverse scenarios
from which the variegated governmentalities proposed by Foucault emerged. Rather than
rejecting the environmentality lens, however, Cullen argues that such contexts provide an
opportunity to elaborate new environmentality regimes that expand the repertoires of envi-
ronmental action and policies within contexts of ongoing and fractious negotiations between
the state and its subjects. Importantly, the notion of transitional environmentality also rec-
ognizes the agency of those subjected to environmentality projects and the negotiations that
occur as these are internalized in relation to local behavioural norms.

From governance to subject formation

A third line of research could explore the correspondence between promoted arts of gov-
ernment and the forms of subjectivity that they seek to enact. This raises two important
8 EPE: Nature and Space 0(0)

questions that not only encourage new empirical research but also conceptual engagements
with other theoretical approaches: how is a new subjectivity forged? And how can it be
researched? Like Hommes et al. (2020) and Cullen (2020), Raquel Machaqueiro (2020) pur-
sues a shift in focus from governance to subjectification to analyse how a neoliberal ‘ethos’
promoted by the United Framework Convention on Climate Change for implementation
within both Brazil and Mozambique influences local stakeholders’ self-understandings. She
identifies an important paradox within this process between a global campaign intended to
transform localities according to a largely generic blueprint and the necessity for this cam-
paign to work through local specificity to actually achieve its intended outcomes. This par-
adox is resolved, Machaqueiro argues, by performative mediations between the local and the
transnational contexts whereby different forms of governmentality eventually are able to
influence some localities. The problematique highlighted by Machaqueiro speaks directly to
broader theories of subject formation and the importance of taking these debates seriously
to advance research in this field. While the traditional Foucauldian approach has often looked
at subjects as passive recipients of environmentality programmes, it could be possible to
balance this focus on structural conditions not only by empirically demonstrating the active
role of subjects, but also by engaging with other theoretical approaches that consider the role
of agency in the process of subjectivation itself (e.g. De Certeau, 1984).
Iain MacKinnon (2020) also focuses on the issue of subject formation or subjectification, not
only as a theoretical but also a methodological issue. He does so by problematizing Agrawal’s
(2005a, 2005b) foundational assertion that community forestry programmes may work to create
‘environmental subjects’. Revisiting the historical context within which Agrawal’s analysis was
developed as well as the data presented by Agrawal himself, MacKinnon contends that evidence
for a newfound ‘care about the environment’ arising in local stakeholders is unconvincing.
Comments such as ‘Just think of all the things we get from forests – fodder, wood, furniture,
manure, soil, water, clean air’ that Agrawal (2005a: 2) presents to support his contention,
MacKinnon argues, actually evince a utilitarian attitude towards natural resources, rather
than the intrinsic valuation Agrawal identifies. Based on this interrogation, MacKinnon
argues that other concepts beyond the Euro-centric theoretical frame guiding Foucault’s own
analyses may need to be added to environmentality studies in order to parse the complexity of
actors’ environmental attitudes and subjectivities in diverse contexts.

Beyond environmentality
MacKinnon’s analysis sets the stage for our fourth line of future research, which proposes other
concepts to complement or replace governmentality/environmentality in describing diverse forms
of ecological politics. In this respect, Fletcher (2020) builds on the multiple environmentalities
typology developed in his own previous work to embed this within an expanded analytic frame-
work that he, inspired by Gibson-Graham (2006), terms the study of ‘diverse ecologies’. This
framework seeks to correlate different approaches to conducting conduct with the divergent
practices through which they are enacted and forms of subjectivity they seek to cultivate. In
this way, Fletcher suggests, complex forms of environmental politics can be dissected and the
relationship between theory and practice in their implementation assessed. He invites other
researchers to apply and continue to develop this approach in their own future studies.

Conclusions
As the contributions to this special collection demonstrate, there remains much fertile
ground for analysis building on the perspectives outlined herein. Different contributors
Fletcher and Cortes-Vazquez 9

have addressed diverse elements of the environmental governmentality problematique.

Some explore the intersection of multiple environmentalities in seeking to dissect the intri-
cacies of complex constellations. Others call for newfound attention to dynamics not ade-
quately encompassed by current conceptions of environmentality, such as the bottom-up
initiatives pursued by local actors, thus advocating new ways of thinking about environ-
mentality or development of new analytics entirely. All contributions thus blend conceptual
innovation with concrete empirical investigation to produce holistic analyses. They include
case studies from a wide variety of sites around the world. Taken together, the papers offer a
rich set of models for how to pursue cutting-edge investigation of environmental governance
in an ever-more-complex contemporary world.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Note
1. Gabrys, meanwhile, draws on Foucault’s discussion in Birth of Biopolitics to contend that his
description of neoliberalism there as ‘an environmental type of intervention instead of the internal
subjugation of individuals’ (2008: 260) invites a reworking of ‘environmentality not as the produc-
tion of environmental subjects but as a spatial– material distribution and relationality of power
through environments, technologies, and ways of life’ (2016: 187, emphasis in original).

References
Agrawal A (2005a) Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Agrawal A (2005b) Environmentality: Community, intimate government, and the making of environ-
mental subjects in Kumaon, India. Current Anthropology 46(2): 161–190.
Alatout S (2013) Commentary: Water scarcity in late modernity. In: LM Harris, JA Goldin and
C Sneddon (eds) Contemporary Water Governance in the Global South. London: Routledge,
pp.101–107.
Asiyanbi AP, Ogar E and Akintoye OA (2019) Complexities and surprises in local resistance to neo-
liberal conservation: Multiple environmentalities, technologies of the self and the poststructural
geography of local engagement with REDDþ. Political Geography 69: 128–138.
Biermann C and Anderson RM (2017) Conservation, biopolitics, and the governance of life and death.
Geography Compass 11(10): e12329.
Boer H (2017) Welfare environmentality and REDDþ incentives in Indonesia. Journal of
Environmental Policy & Planning 19(6): 795–809.
Brenner N, Peck J and Theodore N (2010) After neoliberalization? Globalizations 7(3): 327–345.
Brosius JP (1999) Analyses and interventions: Anthropological engagements with environmentalism.
Current Anthropology 40(3): 277–310.
Cepek ML (2011) Foucault in the forest: Questioning environmentality in Amazonia. American
Ethnologist 38(3): 501–515.
Clarke-Sather A (2017) State power and domestic water provision in semi-arid Northwest China:
Towards an aleatory political ecology. Political Geography 58: 93–103.
10 EPE: Nature and Space 0(0)

Collins YA (2019) Colonial residue: REDDþ, territorialisation and the racialized subject in Guyana
and Suriname. Geoforum 106: 38–47.
Cortes-Vazquez JA and Ruiz-Ballesteros E (2018) Practising nature: A phenomenological rethinking
of environmentality in natural protected areas in Ecuador and Spain. Conservation and Society
16(3): 232–242.
Darier E (1996) Environmental governmentality: The case of Canada’s green plan. Environmental
Politics 5(4): 585–606.
Darier E (1999) Foucault and the environment. In: E Darier (ed) Discourses of the Environment.
Malden, PA: Blackwell, pp.1–33.
de Certeau M (1984) The Practice of Everyday Life. Translated by S. Rendall. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Escobar A (1995) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Faye P (2016) Adding scepticism about ‘environmentality’: Gender exclusion through a natural resour-
ces collectivization initiative in Dionewar, Senegal. In: P Bose and HV Dijk (eds) Dryland Forests.
New York: Springer International Publishing, pp.95114.
Ferguson J (2011) Toward a left art of government: From ‘Foucauldian critique’ to Foucauldian
politics. History of the Human Sciences 24(4): 61–68.
Fletcher R (2010) Neoliberal environmentality: Towards a poststructuralist political ecology of the
conservation debate. Conservation and Society 8(3): 171–181.
Fletcher R (2017a) Environmentality unbound: Multiple governmentalities in environmental politics.
Geoforum 85: 311–315.
Fletcher R (ed) (2017b) Geoforum 85, virtual special issue on “Multiple governmentalities in environ-
mental politics”.
Forsyth T and Walker A (2014) Hidden alliances: Rethinking environmentality and the politics of
knowledge in Thailand’s campaign for community forestry. Conservation and Society 12(4):
408–417.
Foucault M (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.
Foucault M (1991) Governmentality. In: G Burchell, C Gordon and P Miller (eds) The Foucault
Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 87–104.
Foucault M (2007) Security, Territory, Population. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Foucault M (2008) The Birth of Biopolitics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gabrys J (2016) Program Earth: Environmental Sensing Technology and the Making of a Computational
Planet. Vol. 49. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Gibson-Graham JK (2006) A Postcapitalist Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Haller T, Acciaioli G and Rist S (2016) Constitutionality: Conditions for crafting local ownership of
institution-building processes. Society & Natural Resources 29(1): 68–87.
Haller T, Belsky JM and Rist S (eds) (2018) Human Ecology 46(1), special issue on “Constitutionality”.
Jessop W, Brannstrom C and Persons N (2012) ‘We don’t take the pledge’: Environmentality and
environmental scepticism at the epicenter of US wind energy development. Geoforum 43: 851863.
Lemke T (2015) New materialisms: Foucault and the ‘government of things.’ Theory, Culture &
Society 32(4): 3–25.
Lemke T (2016) Foucault, Governmentality and Critique. New York: Routledge.
Li TM (2007) The will to improve: Governmentality, development, and the practice of politics. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press.
Lorimer J (2017) Probiotic environmentalities: Rewilding with wolves and worms. Theory, Culture &
Society 34(4): 27–48.
Luke TW (1995a) Sustainable development as a power/knowledge system: The problem of ‘govern-
mentality’. In: Fischer F and Black M (eds) Greening Environmental Policy. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, pp.21–32.
Luke TW (1995b) On environmentality: Geo-power and eco-knowledge in the discourses of contem-
porary environmentalism. Cultural Critique 31: 57–81.
Fletcher and Cortes-Vazquez 11

Luke T (1999a) Environmentality as green governmentality. In: E Darier (ed) Discourses of the
Environment. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp.121–151.
Luke T (1999b) Eco-managerialism: Environmental studies as a power/knowledge formation. In: F
Fisher and MA Hajer (eds) Living with Nature: Environmental Politics as Cultural Discourse.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.101–120.
Nepomuceno Í, Affonso H, Fraser JA, et al. (2019) Counter-conducts and the green grab: Forest
peoples’ resistance to industrial resource extraction in the Saracá-Taquera National Forest,
Brazilian Amazonia. Global Environmental Change 56: 124–133.
Neumann R (2001) Disciplining peasants in Tanzania: From state violence to self-surveillance in
wildlife conservation. In: NL Peluso and M Watts (eds) Violent Environments. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, pp.305–327.
Nygren A (1998) Environment as discourse: Searching for sustainable development. Environmental
Values 7(2): 201–222.
Rose N (1999) Powers of Liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rose N, O’Malley P and Valverde M (2006) Governmentality. Annual Review of Law and Social
Science 2: 83–104.
Rutherford S (2007) Green governmentality: Insights and opportunities in the study of nature’s rule.
Progress in Human Geography 31(3): 291–307.
Rutherford S (2011) Governing the Wild: Ecotours of Power. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Silva L (2015) Foucault in the landscape: Questioning governmentality in the Azores. Landscape
Research 40(4): 397410.
Singh NM (2013) The affective labor of growing forests and the becoming of environmental subjects:
Rethinking environmentality in Odisha, India. Geoforum 47: 189–198.
Srinivasan K and Kasturirangan R (2016) Political ecology, development, and human exceptionalism.
Geoforum 75: 125–128.
Sundar N (2001) Beyond the bounds? Violence at the margins of new legal geographies. In: NL Peluso
and M Watts (eds) Violent Environments. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp.328–353.
Wang TJ (2015) Green governmentality. In: R Bryant (ed) The International Handbook of Political
Ecology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.318–331.
Whatmore S (2006) Materialist returns: Practising cultural geography in and for a more-than-human
world. Cultural Geographies 13: 600–609.