towards an intradisciplinary bio-geography: a response to lorimer’s ‘lively biogeographies’ of...

Commentary

Towards an intradisciplinarybio-geography: a response to Lorimer’s‘lively biogeographies’ of Asian elephantconservation

Paul Jepson*, Maan Barua*, Richard J Ladle*,** andKathleen Buckingham*

*School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford and Oxford OX1 3QY

**Department of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Vicosa, Vicosa, MG, Brazil

email: [email protected]

revised manuscript received 17 September 2010

Introduction

We welcome Lorimer’s (2010) renewed appeal for

more constructive conversations and collaborations

between physical and human geographers inter-

ested in the diversity and dynamics of life. Lorimer

proposes a new approach to biogeography by

unravelling three important dimensions of human–

elephant companionship and elephant conservation

in Sri Lanka, namely (1) concerns for nonhuman

difference, (2) interspecies conviviality and (3)

cosmopolitan environmentalism. The first dimen-

sion (i.e. nonhuman difference) seeks to reorient

‘conservation towards responsible relations’ and

‘pay close attention to modes of companionship

under which humans and elephants . . . emerge’

(Lorimer 2010, 499). The second strand in Lorimer’s

approach – interspecies conviviality – traces aspects

of ‘elephant difference’ and human–elephant com-

panionship in situations of conflict and captivity.

Cosmopolitan environmentalism seeks to attend to

the politics involved in ‘living with’ and ‘speaking

for’ elephants. By bringing together a revitalised

human geography and aspects of biogeographical

science, Lorimer proposes a ‘lively biogeography’

that will foster intradisciplinary rapprochement

and collaboration.

While biogeography is clearly located within the

natural sciences, we similarly believe that there is

scope for exciting new lines of biogeographic

enquiry that integrate social science perspectives

and that this could have significant policy value for

biodiversity conservation and natural resource

management. As geographers with backgrounds in

the natural sciences and applied conservation, we

are actively engaging with bodies of work within

human geography in an effort to open new ave-

nues in biogeography and conservation theory (e.g.

Ladle and Jepson 2008; Ladle et al. in press). In the

spirit of seeking ways to overcome the challenges

of developing an intradisciplinary approach to

biogeographic research, we first offer perspectives

that identify common ground between the ontolog-

ical and epistemological approach of physical bio-

geographers with those of the ‘more-than-human’

geographers (as outlined by Lorimer). Next we

respond to Lorimer’s analysis of elephant as com-

panion species drawing on our (Barua and Jepson)

engagement with the species. We extend Lorimer’s

analysis of elephant conservation biogeographies

by arguing that more attention needs to be given to

the complexity of the geographies of conservation

action, to themes in conservation science relating to

landscape-scale management, to non-European

modes of speaking for the elephant and to the cir-

culation of elephants outside their range states.

Finally, we go on to profile some of our own

research as evidence for interest in biogeographic

Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 36 170–174 2011

ISSN 0020-2754 � 2010 The Authors.

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers � 2010 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)

ransactionsof the Institute of British Geographers

research that bridges the physical–human divide.

We outline potential areas of fruitful engagement

that might produce an exciting intradisciplinary

biogeography.

Beyond binaries

Our broad understanding is that post-humanistic

geography seeks to work beyond the tired binaries

that have characterised modernity, e.g. nature ⁄ soci-

ety, human ⁄ non-human and possibly theory ⁄practice. The emphasis is that socio-material

change is not an exclusively human achievement

(Whatmore 2006) and that realities are enacted

rather than pre-given and therefore not fixed or

singular (Hinchliffe and Whatmore 2006). We agree

that biogeography has to date focused on the con-

struction of units of nature that enable broad-scale

analysis and that statistical interpretations risk

stripping animals of their individuality and

‘liveliness’. Moreover, a conservation biogeography

could certainly become more attuned to the multi-

plicity and specificities of place and reflect more

upon how biogeographers ‘structure’ their field of

study and ‘respond’ to focal taxa. The current con-

ception of conservation biogeography is in essence

a subset of the field of conservation biology and

hence has a strong prescriptive element (cf. Soule

1985). It aspires to be interdisciplinary; however,

the disciplines that are interwoven are primarily

within the natural sciences (Whittaker et al. 2005;

Ladle and Whittaker in press). While recognising

that many human geographers turn away from the-

ory as representation, viewing it as ‘a technology

of practice and an intervention in the world’

(Whatmore 2006, 601), we are not clear whether

‘lively biogeographies’ seeks the same level of policy

intervention (and engagement) as would be inherent

in ‘conservation biogeography’; indeed, Lorimer

does not offer a definition of ‘lively biogeography’

or an indication of its associated methodology.

Although dualisms are evident in biogeography

(e.g. equilibrium vs non-equilibrium), we believe

that many biogeographers would readily embrace

the notion of ‘relational territories in which Nature

and Society cannot be divided’ (Lorimer 2010, 492).

This is because many (perhaps most) biogeo-

graphers think in terms of variation, gradations, pat-

terns, processes, systems and flux, see evidence of

entanglement everywhere (e.g. the motorway land-

scape, the incorporation of human debris in tropical

beach ecologies) and are well aware that they

construct ‘units’ of nature, not least because they

sometimes engage in acrimonious debates over their

worth and the socio-political factors influencing

their choice (see Jepson and Whittaker [2002], and

response by Wikramanayake et al. [2002]). In addi-

tion many engage in non-linear and interdisciplinary

thought through their participation in the mixed up

complexity of real world policy implementation. For

instance, we see our own work as an experiment

to see if parallel engagement with philosophical ⁄scientific texts and experiential ⁄ practice-based

methods can produce new lines of thought that will

contribute to a ‘revitalised’ biogeography.

We suggest that there is a need to bypass

assertions that, while meaningful within certain

philosophical traditions, can sound pompous or

meaningless to others, e.g. ‘the end of Nature’. In

our view there is ample scope for geographers of

all shades to find common ground in the formula-

tion of contextual ontologies, e.g. the recognition

that realities are enacted in assemblages involving

humans and nonhumans in time and space. To

take forward this discussion we will first contribute

comments that add to the ongoing discussion on

elephant biogeographies, and second offer ideas on

potential new areas of engagement that might

move it towards a coherent theorisation of conser-

vation biogeogeography.

Elephant biogeographies

Lorimer’s arguments are that elephants are a com-

panion species par excellence and that it would be

useful to approach conservation as a ‘mode of com-

panionship in search of convivial relations’ (2010,

502). This picks up on Haraway’s point that com-

panion species are not only the animals that first

come to mind (dogs, cats, parrots) and that are

‘historically situated . . . in companionate relations

with equally situated humans’, but also other crea-

tures whose entanglements with humans have been

‘less shapely and more rambunctious’ (2008,

16–17). As we understand it, ‘companionship’ in

this usage is intended not as a category but as a

pointer to an ongoing ‘becoming with’ that emphas-

ises patterns of relationality and intra-actions at

many scales of space-time (Haraway 2008). Unfortu-

nately for the elephant, and unlike other terrestrial

life-forms, it cannot live within geographies dictated

by humans: it lives at temporal and spatial scales

larger than our own; it cannot be bred and trans-

formed into a ‘convivial companion’; and human

Commentary 171




encounters with elephants on the ground cannot be

summarised through second-hand accounts. For us,

the issue of Asian elephant conservation is far more

problematic than Lorimer’s imagery suggests.

While we appreciate the need for attending to

the shared geographies and social and natural his-

tories of humans and animals, we would argue that

use of the terms ‘companions’ and ‘convivial’ could

provoke misunderstanding and hostility among

those not well-versed in post-humanist literature

and risk trivialising the serious questions concern-

ing future society–elephant relations. When formu-

lating this response we debated whether labelling

the elephant as a ‘slave’ or ‘draught’ animal par

excellence might have produced a more challeng-

ing and informative entry point ‘for learning and

unlearning, exposing ourselves and admitting

failure’ in our relationships with animals (the

elephant) (Beisel 2010, 148). Our point is that in

interdisciplinary discussion, it is an inescapable fact

that terms will assume categorical meanings. Har-

away herself cautions against ‘getting beyond one

troubled category for a worse one’ (Haraway 2008,

19) and we therefore propose the use of older and

more established and widely understood terms as

the basis for an intradisciplinary conversation.

Lorimer traces how elephants are fundamentally

entangled in the political ecologies of Sri Lanka,

and cites work on elephant genetics to suggest that

this has led to the ‘mongrel’ and ‘feral’ elephant

populations of Sri Lanka and the Andaman Islands

being somehow afforded less conservation priority.

The geographies of conservation action are more

complex. For example:

1 The cultural profile of elephants makes them a

fundable target of research for geneticists and

veterinarians, especially if it is framed in-terms

of conservation prioritisation

2 The concept of an Evolutionarily Distinct and

Globally Endangered (EDGE) species is a spe-

cific scientific product of the Zoological Society

of London and was likely initiated in part to

open a niche that would enhance the organisa-

tion’s ability to access funds and conservation

territories

3 Sri Lanka is unique in Asia in that the govern-

ment refused permission for WWF and other

international NGOs to open representative offi-

ces in the country.

A key conservation strategy was the 1998 WWF

Asian Rhino and Elephant Action Strategy. How-

ever, it is well known within the profession that

WWF strategies are based on science and then

modified to align with other organisational priori-

ties including spatial histories of engagement. Sri

Lanka’s mongrel elephants may be down-played in

international elephant discourse, not because of

their genetic identities as Lorimer suggests, but

because Sri Lanka has maintained a more indepen-

dent and nationalist conservation policy. Our point

here is that there is a need for more work on geog-

raphies of conservation engagement and how these

have interacted with local conservation and cul-

tural institutions and environments to create ‘con-

servation biogeographies’.

In our view an understanding of elephant bio-

geographies would benefit from concerns that have

been integral to thinking in conservation biogeogra-

phy. For instance, landscape-scale management

and corridor science are at the forefront of the

field, but little is known about how corridors work

as linkages, not just spatially, but as conduits

between institutions, practices and ecological the-

ory (Goldman 2009). Surrogates are another area

for further work. Projected as flagship, keystone

and umbrella species for conserving ‘background’

diversity (Sukumar 2003), elephants are often made

to stand as representations of nature. We need to

understand what it is that is actually being repre-

sented and whether alternative modes of practice

are edited out through these projections. Moreover,

we believe that greater attention needs to be paid

to non-European modes of speaking for the ele-

phant – a major shortcoming in Lorimer’s accounts

of ‘human–elephant companionship’ in Sri Lanka.

For example, our research in India suggests that

the elephant is simultaneously a deity and a

demon, although the latter is downplayed in con-

servation NGO narratives. Mythic templates for vil-

ifying the creature exist in societies that co-inhabit

elephant-landscapes, and resurface at times of con-

flict (e.g. in 2002 a rogue tusker in Assam was

labeled ‘Bin Laden’ as a symbol of terror). Anthro-

pological perspectives on human–animal relation-

ships that emphasise dwelt achievements and

develop time-deepened personal encounters with

local communities (Ingold 2000) are needed if

‘lively biogeographies’ are to achieve their promise.

Finally, we believe that attention needs to be paid

to the circulation of elephants in conservation

networks, both within and outside elephant-range

states. For example, a recently concluded ‘Elephant

Parade’ in London1 displayed painted elephant

172 Paul Jepson et al.




sculptures across the city of London to raise funds

for elephant conservation (mainly land purchase for

corridors) in Asia. Elephants were portrayed in a

fashion that resonated with an art-loving western

audience removed from the physicality (corporeality

if you like) of ‘real’ elephants. Exploring how such

‘embodiments’ of elephant in urban culture (re)cre-

ate profiles of the elephant and their implication for

conservation on the ground is critical for a better

reworking of cosmopolitan environmentalism.

Broadening interdisciplinarity inconservation biogeography

So far our contributions to broadening interdis-

ciplinarity in the nascent field of conservation bio-

geography have included investigations of applied

conservation questions relating to animals and

plants with clear cultural dimensions. For instance,

in a recent study of bird-keeping in Indonesian cit-

ies, we examined local social ⁄ ecological practices

relating to the hugely popular pastime of acquiring,

keeping, breeding, training and competing native

songbirds (Jepson 2008; Jepson and Ladle 2009).

These modes of co-habitation of humans and birds

are inherently corporeal, ethologically attuned, and

enmeshed in ‘more-than-human’ assemblages. They

unfold in heterogeneous spaces and unsettle the

western ways of knowing that have constructed

the conservation biogeographies of Indonesia. The

former emphasises the individual bird, husbandry

skills and a sophisticated appreciation of song,

posture and provenance. The latter emphasises the

species, skills of bird finding, identification record-

ing and appreciation of scarcity and uniqueness

(endemism), which creates the basis for construct-

ing the biogeographic units (bioregions and ende-

mic bird areas; Jepson and Whittaker 2002) and

priority conservation territories (Important Bird

Areas) that co-produce Indonesian conservation

logics and practice. The prescriptive aspect of this

study was to suggest that bird conservationists

were ignoring major aspects of human–bird biogeo-

graphies, the acknowledgement of which would

require new modes of public and policy engage-

ment, including the identification or facilitation of

new discursive spaces where a more distinctive

bird-conservation ethos could emerge (Jepson 2010).

In short, new biogeographies of conservation and

policy formulation.

Lorimer’s suggestion that contemporary bio-

geography is mainly about plant distributions

represents a limited reading of biogeographical

literature. In any event, plants are conducive to

interdisciplinary rapproachment in biogeography.

For instance, we are engaged in two projects to

explore how plants are enmeshed in socio-ecological

assemblages that include both the human and non-

human entities. The first concerns bamboo, a fast

growing monocot with two distinct growth forms

(corporeality) that are entangled with histories of

nationalism, modes of resources use and language

that together shape local political ecologies and

assemble geographies of bamboo diversity and

management. The ‘cosmopolitan’ nature of bamboo

is emerging as it enters global networks of trade

and commerce and associated standards (e.g.

Forest Stewardship Council). The second is inves-

tigating the hybrid nature of the geographies of

figs in Assam, India. This involves locating figs

in socio-ecological assemblages of pollinators

(Fig-wasps), dispersers (birds, bats), objects of reli-

gious practice (as temples, shrines), and practices of

local resource use. Fig distributions are shaped by

these agents and in turn influence the distribution

and feeding patterns of their dispersers. Moreover,

their fruiting phenology is tied together with the

life-cycles and co-evolution of its pollinators. Their

corporeality evokes responses in humans (fear, awe,

reverence) and shapes modes of dwelling in the local

landscape (e.g. as markers of place). As ecological

keystones, they are of interest to conservationist bio-

logists as they enhance the biodiversity value of

human-dominated landscapes. We suggest there are

many other species that offer ideal cases to develop

new concepts and questions that would contribute

to a revitalised and more socially oriented biogeo-

graphy: the wolf (undergoing a dramatic population

recovery in Europe) and orangutan (an animal

mobilised to oppose conversion of tropical forests

into palm oil) are two examples.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the term and language of ‘lively

biogeographies’ seems more suited to the project

of animating human geography rather than to an

intradisciplinary project seeking to extend the

boundaries of biogeography. Moreover, we would

welcome a broader intradisciplinary conversation:

for instance, with political geographers on the role

of organisations and institutions in producing

the distribution and patterns of life-forms and with

economic geographers and those specialising in

Commentary 173




Science and Technology Studies (STS) on the role

of technologies (categorisation schemes, standards)

in producing and transforming biological space.

We feel that the term ‘lively biogeographies’, with

its attention to the agency and corporeality of ani-

mals, expresses only one dimension of the conver-

sation and is a poor intradisciplinary descriptor.

The ‘conservation biogeography’ label has already

been defined in terms of natural science collabora-

tions. If we do need a label, one solution might be

to reinsert the hyphen in bio-geography to signify

the intradisciplinary focus of the (initial) conversa-

tion. We hope that this response illustrates both the

potential and our enthusiasm for ‘lively’ and pro-

ductive collaborations between physical (bio)

geographers, ‘more-than-human’ and other geogra-

phers, but also our appeal for a more accessible

language. We are grateful to Jamie Lorimer for

initiating and provoking this exchange and we

hope that others will enter the fray.

Note

1 See http://www.elephantparadelondon.org [Accessed

4 November 2010] for details.

References

Beisel U 2010 Jumping hurdles with mosquitoes? Environ-

ment and Planning D: Society and Space 28 46–9

Goldman M 2009 Constructing connectivity: conservation

corridors and conservation politics in East African

Rangelands Annals of the Association of American Geogra-

phers 99 335–59

Haraway D J 2008 When species meet University of Minne-

sota Press, Minneapolis MN

Hinchliffe S and Whatmore S 2006 Living cities: towards

a politics of conviviality Science as Culture 15 123–38

Ingold T 2000 The perception of the environment Routledge,

London

Jepson P 2008 Orange-headed thrush and the avian. X-fac-

tor Birding Asia 9 58–60

Jepson P 2010 Towards an Indonesian bird conservation

ethos: reflections from a study of bird-keeping in the

cities of Java and Bali in Tidemann S and Gosler A eds

Ethno-ornithology: birds, indigenous peoples, culture and

society Earthscan, London 313–30

Jepson P and Ladle R J 2009 Governing bird-keeping in

Java and Bali: evidence from a household survey Oryx

43 364–74

Jepson P and Whittaker R J 2002 Ecoregions in context: a

critique with special reference to Indonesia Conservation

Biology 16 42–57

Ladle R J and Jepson P 2008 Toward a biocultural theory

of avoided extinction Conservation Letters 2 1–8

Ladle R J, Jepson P and Gillison L in press Social values

and conservation biogeography in Ladle R and Whit-

taker R J eds Conservation biogeography Oxford Univer-

sity Press, Oxford

Ladle R and Whittaker R J eds in press Conservation bio-

geography Oxford University Press, Oxford

Lorimer J 2010 Elephants as companion species: the lively

biogeographies of Asian elephant conservation in Sri

Lanka Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers

35 491–506

Soule M E 1985 What is conservation biology? Bioscience

35 727–34

Sukumar R 2003 The living elephants: evolutionary ecology,

behaviour, and conservation Oxford University Press, New

York

Whatmore S 2006 Materialist returns: practicing cultural

geography in and for a more-than-human world Cul-

tural Geographies 13 600–9

Whittaker R J, Araujo M B, Jepson P, Ladle R J, Watson

J E M and Willis K J 2005 Conservation biogeography:

assessment and prospect Diversity and Distributions 11

3–23

Wikramanayake E D, Dinerstein E, Loucks C, Olson D,

Morrison J, Lamoreux J, McKnight M and Hedao P

2002 Ecoregions in ascendance: Reply to Jepson and

Whittaker Conservation Biology 16 238–43

174 Paul Jepson et al.




towards an intradisciplinary bio-geography: a response to lorimer’s ‘lively biogeographies’ of...

Documents