Political returns on the twenty-first century stage: Caryl Churchill’s Far Away, Drunk Enough to Say I Love You? and Seven Jewish Children

There is some hesitation in theatre scholarship to confront and engage with the resurgence of political theatre in the 21st century, despite the vast numbers of political plays that have been performed in a variety of genres on the British stage in the last decade. This article considers the rejuvenation of political theatre in the 21st century and focuses in particular on Caryl Churchill’s Far Away (2000), Drunk Enough to Say I Love You? (2006) and Seven Jewish Children: A Play for Gaza (2009). I argue that these plays rehabilitate explicit political comment for the stage as well as discover fresh theatrical languages to represent what are often familiar political narratives. The discussion borrows from the writings of Jacques Rancière to help identify strategies Churchill’s plays use to find innovative ways of producing new forms of political subjectivity in audiences

‘We are heartbroken and furious!’ Engaging with violence in the (anti-)globalisation movement(s)

This piece is intended as an exploratory comment on the militancy emerging in (anti-)globalisation political practice and in the policing of such practice, rather than as a definitive analysis. As someone who attempts to pursue a tradition of the ‘organic intellectual’ – engaging in the practice of activism as well as the theorising of activist practice – the paper has emerged from my own process of sense-making regarding violence in the ‘(anti-)globalisation movement(s)’. It flows from xperience of irruptive situations, my perceptions of the contextual causes of violence in these situations, and my thinking around the subversive and transformative potential, or otherwise, of violence in engendering radical post-capitalist social relations. I take as a starting point the recent protests against the EU summit meeting in Thessaloniki, June 2003, which culminated in substantial violence against property and towards police by antiauthoritarian protesters, and was met by the police with violent attack and the brutalisation of those arrested. I do not assume a moral standpoint regarding the value or otherwise of violence to ‘the movements’. Instead I try to consider why violence is increasing as a bio-political tactic in these contexts, ‘upfronting’ both the normalisation of psychological and physical violence in the everyday circumstances of late-capitalism, and the depression and anger this engenders. In the interests of strategic debate regarding the usefulness of violence in potentiating post-capitalist social relations, however, I attempt to disentangle the relative (f)utility of acting out, acting upon and denying the experience of anger. My personal stance is to celebrate the transformative potential and energy of the correct attribution of the contextual sources of anger – particularly in shifting between the microcosm of individual circumstances and the macrocosm of structural societal violence within which these arise – whilst upholding a view that violence as a simple reaction to alienating circumstances is likely to maintain rather than shift their brutalising tendencies. My conclusion is both gloomy and hopeful. On the one hand, given that violence to life is both so systemic to late capitalist modernity and that ‘we’ tend to be in such denial regarding its dehumanising psychosocietal effects, I am clear that it is likely that the incidence of violence in protest politics as elsewhere will increase in reaction to this. On the other hand, I celebrate the creative energy present in global anti-capitalist actions and practice, the emergence of a global peace movement as a political force, and the current radicalisation of people otherwise deemed by some to be politically apathetic

Frontline(s)

The challenge of theorising and analysing socio-political phenomena can feel overwhelming given today’s somewhat threatening realpolitik (9/11, US-led wars on Afghanistan, Iraq and now, perhaps, Syria) and the rapid pace with which (dis)information is received, digested and discarded. Through an act of ‘literary montage’ construction, and prefaced by some interpretation of my own, I offer this ‘exhibit’ as an attempt to highlight this sense of dislocation whilst simultaneously ‘building a picture’. A specific concern is to problematise the notion of ‘the frontline’. Given blatant military and economic imperialism by the US, underscored by the construction and fetishising of the rational subject under modernity and the social democratic state, I suggest that frontlines are located in any public or private space where the legitimacy of these interests and categories is questioned. Expressions of difference, including peace activism, thus become ‘proliferating illegitimacies’ and are policed as such. Against this context, the texts positioned here tell of growing realisation and fear of the coldness and instrumentalism at the heart of empire-building, of which both the horrific violence currently inflicted on Iraqi people, and the discounting and suppression of dissent to war worldwide, are part. For a global anti-capitalist/pro-justice movement that recognises trade in arms as a core constraint on human potential, reaching beyond this fear - retaining the hope of the ‘politics of possibility’ with which this ‘movement of movements’ has come to be identified – emerges as a latent and essential challenge

An Outlaw Ethics for the Study of Religions: Maternality and the Dialogic Subject in Julia Kristeva’s 'Stabat Mater'

In this essay I examine Julia Kristeva’s transgressive body of work as a strategic embodiment of, and argument for, an ethical orientation towards otherness predicated on the image of divided subjectivity identified by Jacques Lacan but powerfully re-theorised as dialogic by Kristeva. I focus on what is, for Kristeva, a stylistically unique essay – 'Stabat Mater' – which examines a number of institutional discourses about motherhood from the western philosophical, religious, and psychoanalytical traditions, and simultaneously subverts them with a parallel discourse (and enactment) ostensibly by an actual mother. The text itself, I argue, can be read as a performance of dialogic subjectivity and of Kristeva’s conception of maternality, which implies a radical ethical imperative – termed 'herethics' – towards alterity. I propose that this herethical model might heuristically inform current debates regarding the ethical orientations of the study of religions as an academic field

Factors influencing the adoption of whole farm plans : a Wairarapa case study : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Applied Science in Agricultural Extension at Massey University

Hill country erosion is a serious environmental issue in New Zealand. After widespread damage from storms in 2004, Horizons Regional Council initiated the SLUI programme. This programme relies on whole farm plans (Whole Farm Business Plans) as the core tool to address erosion on hill country farms. Several regional councils in New Zealand, like Horizons, rely on whole farm plans and continue to seek ways to achieve a high level of voluntary adoption by farmers. A single case study was used to examine the phenomena of adoption of whole farm plans. This research answered the question: What factors influence the adoption by farmers of whole farm plans, and why these factors are influential? A review of historical farm plans identified plans most similar to Horizons Whole Farm Business Plans. These were located in the Wairarapa and this formed the case area. Farmers from two catchments in the Wairarapa, and key informants were interviewed to identify factors influencing adoption of farm plans. Findings from this study, in the main, support adoption diffusion literature for agricultural innovations. The specific mix of interrelated factors that influence the adoption of farm plans, and the reasons for their influence, were identified and described. Characteristics of this case included the widespread adoption of farm plans, and farmers' perceived farm plan implementation as secondary to the core farm business. Factors associated with the compatibility of the innovation to the core farm business and the credibility of the organisation delivering farm plans provided important influences on adoption of farm plans. The circumstances of the farmers and their farm did not strongly influence adoption in this study because farm plans are customised and take into account each individual's circumstances. For an innovation such as farm plans that is considered secondary to the core farm business, factors easing implementation were important. This was contributed to by the characteristics of the innovation and by the delivery and support from the organisation. Key people played a significant role in farmers' decisions to adopt a farm plan

Financialisation, biodiversity conservation and equity: some currents and concerns

Executive Summary: When nature is viewed in monetary terms, is it the nature that is valued, or the money? And what implications does this have for ecosystems and equity, given a financialised economy that rewards money products and their brokers, and that tends towards speculative and volatile dynamics? The current biodiversity crisis is giving rise to calls for a massive mobilisation of financial resources to conserve biodiversity, and to reduce the drivers of biodiversity loss. The possibility for ‘innovative mechanisms’ to assist with resource mobilisation needs is included in the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2011-2020) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This has generated a fizz of interest around what might constitute ‘innovative financing mechanisms’ for biodiversity. At the same time, much attention is directed to questions of how much nature is worth, and of how this worth might be signalled through prices that move decision-making in directions that are more ecologically sustainable. The recent UN programme on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) gives added impetus to the incorporation of monetised ecological values into national and corporate decision-making and accounting practices, and is welcomed as such in the CBD’s current Strategic Plan. Financial support for TEEB comes from the European Commission, Germany, the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Japan. Accounting for nature in terms of ‘natural capital’ and ‘ecosystem services’ also creates wealth-generating opportunities through the possibility that proxies for conserved or restored nonhuman nature can be mobilised as capital-bearing assets. This reflects a ‘Green Economy’ ideology proposing that social equity and environmental sustainability are compatible with further economic growth and entrepreneurial activity. A pillar of this ideology is the conversion of nature health and harm into capital assets that can be traded and financialised, and requires the following: Numerical representation. First, nature needs to be conceptually ‘cut up’ into units that can be represented as numbers. These numbers, often referred to as ‘metrics’, act as surrogate or proxy measures for valued aspects of ecosystems. Numerical representation reduces ecosystem complexity to create apparent equivalence and commensurability between different locations and times. Through this, trade-offs between sites of development and sites of conservation become possible. Monetisation. This is the process whereby something is conceived of in monetary terms, and thus behaves as a commodity that can be exchanged for a monetary payment. The use of metrics for turning aspects of nonhuman nature into numerical scores helps generate monetary figures for use in cost-benefit analyses and cognate economic models. As noted by economists, these can produce monetised values that, whilst useful, may be ad hoc, unreliable, and even deceptive. The state as market facilitator. Legal markets require state participation in numerous ways. In environmental markets for conservation, the state provides regulatory frameworks to generate demand, creates terms attractive to investors and entrepreneurs through tax breaks and subsidies, and can underwrite loans bound with nature assets to make these investable by the private sector. These processes enable measures of nature health and harm to become marketised, capitalised and financialised in various ways: Trading nature. Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) are considered to compensate for economic opportunity costs in contexts where environmental uses are altered so as to conserve the integrity of particular ecosystem functions. PES might take the form of relatively simple direct payments for transformed behaviour so that ecosystem service managers maintain a defined environmental good. Examples include water users paying upstream farmers not to engage in practices that might damage water quality downstream, or payments to tropical forest dwellers for the maintenance of carbon stored in trees constructed as an ‘offset’ for industrial CO2 emissions. Many existing national ecosystem services markets are maintained through substantial government subsidies. New legislative structures also make it possible for developers to offset new environmental harms, through purchasing conservation activity on formally owned land areas elsewhere, and thereby trading environmental harm for environmental health. Examples include species and wetland mitigation banking in the USA, habitat banking in the UK, and various biodiversity offset schemes globally, all of which trade fungible units of species, habitats and biodiversity. Nature markets. The conversion of nature aspects into numerical scores associated with monetary payments enables markets in conservation indicators. To create and service these markets, as well as to facilitate ‘price discovery’ through linking buyers and sellers, voluntary market exchanges for conservation measures currently are being established by nature brokers and environmental-financial entrepreneurs. Examples include the US ‘Earth Exchange’ of Mission MarketsTM, and the UK’s Environment Bank Ltd, through which conservation credits can be traded as commodities. The prospect of financial gain from these markets is attracting large entrepreneurial investors. Bonding nature. Once elements of nature have been conceived as monetised units, they can also be leveraged as a new class of capital asset. As such, they may become the collateral for capital-releasing loans bonded with the designated monetary value of the underlying nature aspect. New environmental bond structures are suggested for the ‘frontloading’ of predicted future incomes from conserved ecosystems, which would act as collateral for loans by private investors and multilateral donors. This would connect investor finance now with infrastructural developments considered in time to enhance environmental sustainability and to generate financial returns. ‘REDD+ bonds’, for example, would permit the mobilisation of predicted future payments for expected emissions reductions provided by standing forests under the United Nation’s REDD+ mechanism (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries) to act as collateral for loans to finance upfront investments in REDD+ and other environmental infrastructure. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the Global Canopy Programme, the Climate Bonds Initiative, Goldman Sachs and the private bankers Lombard Odier, similarly propose that through ‘forest bonds’ guaranteed by the national governments of forest-rich countries, the ‘natural capital’ of tropical forests could be ‘materialised’ to leverage finance for development from global capital markets. It is unclear who would own collateralised (i.e. pledged) ‘natural capital’ in the case of possible payment defaults. Nature derivatives. As observed for the recently created market in tradable carbon units, the big money tends not to be in the credits themselves, but in poorly regulated voluntary and bespoke over-the-counter (OTC) trades in financialised products derived from these credits. As units of conserved or restored nature are leveraged as ‘natural capital’ in environmental markets, bonds and mortgages, these might be similarly ‘securitised’ into derived money-bearing products. This could transform the risk of species extinction and biodiversity decline, for example, into speculative opportunities. It is unclear what implications this would have for the ‘underlying’, which in this case could be credits for species populations, biodiversity and habitats. These are significant in-roads into the financialisation of biodiversity conservation, that may contribute to a scaling-up of financial resourcing for the sustenance of biodiversity. But these innovations also generate concern: Conservation markets such as habitat banking require development-related ecological harm for their existence, so as to maintain the sorts of prices that might fund the conservation considered to offset development-related environmental harm. This generates a perverse situation in which ecological harm ensures market values for conservation, such that degradation is needed in order to sustain market demand for this conservation mechanism. The raising of economic rents for land areas through the enhanced monetary values commanded by credit-bearing indicators of nature health may act to displace people from land areas as governments and investors seek to ‘grab’ these new values. Such enhancement of inequity is both unethical and may amplify the drivers of biodiversity degradation by diluting the possibility of collective action in support of conservation policies. The legal and customary rights of indigenous peoples and local communities will also be impacted. Finally, conversion of complex landscapes into numerical and monetised metrics instrumentalises peoples and nonhuman natures so that these conform to a homogenising system in which money is the mediator of all value. This can displace local eco-cultural knowledge, practices and values which may be more benign for biodiversity, thereby reducing options for transferring maximum socio-ecological diversity to our descendants