Organizing-with Nature: A Study on the Ecologies of Practices in Brazilian Conservation Units
Filipe Cabacine Lopes Machado & Letícia Dias Fantinel
What the paper says
Objective: this article aims to investigate the ways in which organizing-with nature is mobilized within the ecologies of conservation/preservation practices in Brazilian conservation units (CUs). Theoretical approach: drawing inspiration from Donna Haraway and Isabelle Stengers, we propose a perspective on organizing that blurs the boundaries of the nature-culture divide. Guided by the understanding that all organizing is inherently organizing-with - necessarily involving practices of composition - and that certain modes of organizing give rise to more-than-human modes of existence and frictions between diverse worlds, we introduce the notion of organizing-with nature as an analytical-conceptual tool for understanding the ecologies of conservation/preservation practices within CUs. Method: the empirical body of the study was constructed through semi-structured interviews with individuals directly involved in conservation/preservation work in Brazilian CUs. The data were analyzed qualitatively in dialogue with literature reviews and documentary research. Results: organizing-with nature in CUs is mobilized through the coexistence of more-than-human life forms within the ecologies of conservation/preservation practices. In these ecologies, the frictions between worlds generate zones of mutual capture and constraint, whose outcomes are deeply entangled with relationships of territorial belonging. Conclusions: this article contributes to the field of organizational studies by discussing how organizing processes are (re)produced in becoming-with, within the relational networks that emerge from the frictions among ecologies of conservation/preservation practices. Finally, we explore the cosmopolitical implications of our study for addressing the complexities involved in the management of conservation units.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.