Paper short abstract:

In this talk we discuss the production of anthropological knowledge on environmentalism and security, clustered into nearly opposite claims about the need for more or less regulation. We review the literature and its analytical arguments, as a move away from good-bad, first-order observations.

Paper long abstract:

In this talk we discuss the production of anthropological knowledge on environmentalism and security, both arenas of fieldwork in which we find a narrow range of proffered analyses. The approaches and claims formulated in these two contrast cases are distinct, and indeed, nearly opposite. Studies on environmental projects, especially those involving environmental risks to society, are usually framed within an anthropological discussion that concludes with the need to reveal risks and bad practices, so as to better regulate and control their effects. Current writing on security is almost always presented through the prism of "militarism" and involves an opposite claim, about over-securitization and the need to reduce regulation and security measures in the name of freedom, i.e. civil liberties. The field of affect associated with environmental risks is a combination of concern and indignation, which is paralleled in relation to security efforts, rather than security threats, although these threats maybe taken seriously or viewed as contrived. We discuss this affective field with regard to the range of relationships comprising anthropologists, especially anthropologists and their informants, which includes activists, citizens, professionals, and policymakers in environmentalism and security efforts. This work is based on a review of the anthropological literature and its analytical arguments, as a step toward the goal of moving away from good-bad, first-order observations.