Authority, Expertise and Power in Mexican Forests: A Discussion with Andrew Mathews

Tuesday May 22, 2012

4-6:00 PM

Engineering 2, 599

Join us for a discussion of Science & Justice member Andrew Matthew’s recently released book, Instituting Nature: Authority, Expertise and Power in Mexican Forests (MIT Press).

Greater knowledge and transparency are often promoted as the keys to solving a wide array of governance problems. In Instituting Nature, Andrew Mathews describes Mexico’s efforts over the past hundred years to manage its forests through forestry science and biodiversity conservation. He shows that transparent knowledge was produced not by official declarations or scientists’ expertise but by encounters between the relatively weak forestry bureaucracy and the indigenous people who manage and own the pine forests of Mexico. Mathews charts the performances, collusions, complicities, and evasions that characterize the forestry bureaucracy. He shows that the authority of forestry officials is undermined by the tension between local realities and national policy; officials must juggle sweeping knowledge claims and mundane concealments, ambitious regulations and routine rule breaking.
Moving from government offices in Mexico City to forests in the state of Oaxaca, Mathews describes how the science of forestry and bureaucratic practices came to Oaxaca in the 1930s and how local environmental and political contexts set the stage for local resistance. He tells how the indigenous Zapotec people learned the theory and practice of industrial forestry as employees and then put these skills to use when they become the owners and managers of the area’s pine forests–eventually incorporating forestry into their successful claims for autonomy from the state. Despite the apparently small scale and local contexts of this balancing act between the power of forestry regulations and the resistance of indigenous communities, Mathews shows that it has large implications–for how we understand the modern state, scientific knowledge, and power and for the global carbon markets for which Mexican forests might become valuable.

Andrew Mathews, "Authority, Expertise and Power in Mexican Forests"
SJWG Rapporteur Report
22 May 2012
Rapporteur: Martha Kenney, History of Consciousness
Andrew Mathews , Assistant Professor of Anthropology at UCSC, spoke to us about his new
book, Instituting Nature: Authority, Expertise and Power in Mexican Forests. Drawing on his
background in forest ecology, Mathews investigated the uses of and discourses around fire in
Mexican forests using historical, ethnographic, and scientific methods. Although pine forests
need fire for growth and regeneration, the Mexican state has demonized the use of fire,
characterizing it as destructive, catastrophic, and abnormal. For officials, who are tasked with
the responsibility of maintaining orderly landscapes, the practice of using fire to maintain the
forest seems messy and incomprehensible. Because of the dominance of this official discourse
and because of the illegality of burning many of the people Mathews spoke to claimed that fire
was not used to maintain the surrounding forests (even though there was evidence of fire
histories). Although there is an official form to apply for permission to burn, no one has ever
applied. Mathews argued that these “official channels” prevent agricultural practices from
becoming official knowledge, silences multiple knowledges, and prevents people from
understanding the agricultural uses for fire. His ethnographic work, for example, shows that the
younger generation only had negative views of fire as something that needed to be fought and
controlled. Older people, on the other hand, tended to see fire as a kind of ally in growing crops,
not a dangerous force outside of human sociality. As fire is made illegal, agricultural history is
forgotten. The government’s demands for legibility and transparency are producing doubt and
confusion. Overall, Mathews showed how looking at fire helps us to think about “The State” in
a concrete way and opens up important questions about which forest management practices can
survive and in what form.

During the Q&A Jenny Reardon asked about how Mathews’ hybrid methods articulated different
forms of evidence. Mathews said that he looked for resistances and uncertainty in his methods.
He was interested in surprise and the limits of method. Multiple knowledges destabilize each
other in productive ways. Anna Tsing picked up the question of science and justice and wanted
to know if there was such a thing as “justice for pines.” Mathews talked about the agencies of
pines and how they have memory and imagination build into their structure. Matthias wanted to
know what nations have against fire. Mathews said that the distrust of fire stems from
imaginaries of rural disorder and power of fire to transform landscapes in unpredictable ways.
Transformation is difficult for governments to deal with, since they strive to create order. These
and other questions helped to further draw out the stakes of Mathews’ project and connect them
to larger S&J questions about interdisciplinary knowledge, more-than-human justice, and the role
of discourse and state regulation in shaping technoscientific practices.

Slow Science? Fast Science? How Pace Matters in Science

October 6th, 2010
Slow Science? Fast Science? How Pace Matters in Science
October 6, 2010, 4:30-6:30
Engineering 2, 599
A brief perusal of key scientific journals and science policy documents reveals that questions about how fast science can produce new knowledge and innovation has become a widely acknowledged concern. Scientists promise to be close to breakthroughs, policy makers argue that “we”

Are You My Data? Symposium

Conference hosted by the Science & Justice Working Group Conference
sponsored by the UCSC Office of Research, and the UCSC Cancer Genomic Hub

With a human genome sequenced and a map of variable sites in that genome created, governments and many other public and private actors now seek to make genomic data relevant to health, medicine and the society. However, to do so they must navigate the conjunction of two different approaches to data. Within the biomedical domain there are important, well-articulated infrastructures and commitments arising out of concerns about individual rights, patient privacy and the doctor-patient relationship that limit access to biomedical data. This stands in stark contrast to the culture of open access forged by those who worked on the Human Genome Project, and that has continued to be a central commitment of ongoing Human Genome research. Thus, architects of the genomic revolution face competing, complex technical and ethical challenges that arise from this meeting of these domains with substantially different ethos. Additionally, the rise of social media has led to a broad and contested discussion about the proper relationship between persons and data and who profits through access to it.

Continue Reading Are You My Data? Symposium

Eating Information? Food and Metabolism in Epigenetic Perspective

Hannah Landecker (UCLA Center for Genetics and Society)

January 26, 2012, 3:00-5:00 PM

Engineering 2, Room 399

Epigenetics has turned food and its metabolism into a problem that is not just about how the body turns food its basic components–carbohydrates, fat, protein-but how food acts as a signal of the environment–both biological and political. Hannah Landecker will explore what this transformation of metabolism and epigenetics reveals about food, environmental politics, and the increased salience of metabolism as a sight for biological understanding and political and moral contestation.

Hannah Landecker, "Eating Information? Food and Metabolism in Epigenetic Perspective"
SJWG Rapporteur Report
26 January 2012
Rapporteur: Martha Kenney, History of Consciousness
Hannah Landecker, Associate Professor at the Society and Genetics Institute at UCLA, spoke to
us about her new book project, American Metabolism. Although the field that she is interested in
is called “nutritional epigenetics,” Landecker has reframed this research as belonging to a longer
tradition of studying “metabolism.” For Landecker, metabolism is about trans-substantiation, one
substance being changed into another. In recent nutritional epigenetics research, we see new
pathways of trans-substantiation. For example, Landecker showed us an article with a mother
mouse and her pups captioned: “They are what she ate.”

After giving us an overview of the epigenetics research, Landecker focused on the theory that
gene expression is regulated by signals from the environment, creating different phenotypes in
the presence of genetic sameness. In research on maternal anxiety behaviors, trans-generational
endocrine disruptors, and nutritional effects, we witness how licking, plastic, and food,
respectively, are presented as environmental signals. Landecker believes that the category of
“signal” is both incredibly productive and not very precise; it is under-theorized by scientists and
STS scholars. She wonders if, in the field of nutritional epigenetics, “the social” has become a

In the last part of her talk Landecker compared studies of metabolism in the late 19th century to
contemporary research in nutritional epigenetics. Early accounts of metabolism, such as those
by Thomas Huxley, figured metabolism as a set of processes the function like a factory or inner
laboratory. Landecker argued that this was an industrial paradigm for an industrial era. Key
figures and areas of emphasis were: energy, manufacturing, substrate, waste accumulation, labor
and fatigue. In the post-industrial era a new set of figures has arisen: Information, regulation,
signal (timing), functional asynchrony, sleeping and aging. She strongly believes that changes in
the framework for understanding metabolism changes what experiments are conducted and what
kind of knowledge is created. She concluded by arguing that it is important to track and
understand these changes as they are happening.

During the Q&A key questions revolved around the historical specificity of nutritional
epigenetics and issues of social and ethical responsibility arising from this new framework for
metabolism. Jake Metcalf compared responsibility in the factory model with the post-industrial
model. In the factory model, he argued, one person is responsible for the consumption of food;
in the post-industrial regulatory model, many-many humans and non-humans are responsible.
How do we delegate responsibility? Playing off of Landecker’s characterization of epigenetics
belonging to a biology of the in-between, Jenny Reardon suggests that it is difficult to regulate
the in-between. Metcalf replied that we just don’t have the models to make decision-making
viable. Landecker characterized this problem as being burdened by complexity.

This led to the question of what kind of “actionable knowledge” is created by metabolism
research and the figures that underpin it. Responding to a question by Julie Guthman about the
DES growth hormone used in cattle farming, Landecker argued that the current DES problem
was caused by the industrial model, which tried to produce as much meat possible for as little
feed as possible. In other words, the metaphors of a previous generation of science created the
material conditions of today’s farming.

The remaining questions continued to play about this interrelationship between metaphor and
materiality. Elaine Gan, for example, suggested that we think about metabolism metaphors in
Marx. Landecker explained that these were not only metaphors; Marx was deeply interested in
the science of metabolism and believed, for example, that the Irish peasants would not revolt
because they lived off of potatoes. This rich discussion foregrounded the importance of tracking
the relationship between figures, history, materiality, knowledge, and production when
considering questions of science and justice in hot new scientific fields like epigenetics.

Dispute over Lab Notebook Lands Researcher in Jail

I thought some of you might find this article interesting: basically a woman was jailed (with a $100,000 bail) for stealing ~20 of her old lab notebooks, flash drives and other materials from her former place of work. There’s also underpinnings of the subjectivity in science in the controversial nature of her earlier work. Its kind of a sad story all around, but relevant to some of what we’ve discussed this past quarter.

Dispute over Lab Notebook Lands Researcher in Jail

Science and Justice Moving Forward

akargl Says:
November 29th, 2011 at 2:40 pm edit

The quarter has gone by so fast! I’m looking forward to the interesting things we’ve brewed up for next year, and to conversations about what else to do. For my part in the blog part of these conversations, I’d like to offer a provocation:

A main thing I’d like to see in S & J’s future has to do with the kind of re-worlding going on in the occupation movement, including the hope its form may signal for the ongoing struggles with inequality within it. How might we re-world the space in which we find ourselves in such a way that we resistance-occupy it? Continue Reading Science and Justice Moving Forward

ideas, new spaces for s&j

egan Says:
November 29th, 2011 at 2:25 pm edit

Not sure if we’re supposed to be posting these, but here are my thoughts on expanded spaces for science and justice. Perhaps openings for future discussions:

1. Universe… and Pluriverses
I’m still holding out for multiplicities: other worlds and pluriverses that are historically constituted, precarious, and aleatory. How to speak about “justice” as shifting practices of inclusion and exclusion, without the promise of a Universe or the melancholy of relativisms? Continue Reading ideas, new spaces for s&j

Op-Ed Thread

icarbone Says:
November 22nd, 2011 at 12:32 am edit

I think this may be a bit more of a rant than an Op-Ed at this point, but maybe you all can help me focus it a bit.

Frustrations over socioeconomic disparities and the influence of corporations on the US political system reached a critical point on September 17th. Protesters swarmed to Zuccotti Park for Occupy Wall Street, and since then demonstrations have been springing up in over 1000 US cities. The Occupy movements have empowered a growing community to push for Continue Reading Op-Ed Thread

Op-Ed Pitch Thread

icarbone Says:
November 22nd, 2011 at 12:35 am edit

The occupy movements have empowered a growing community to push for significant societal change. This change need not be confined to Wall Street. The OWS movement should inspire us all to reclaim science, technology, and the health of the natural world. The fearless abandon that protesters are exhibiting across the country can be our greatest asset in movement away from fossil fuels and towards renewable alternatives in the United States. This article will encourage the Bay area to continue building a community, and to extend the occupy movement to the greatest political and environmental threats that the global community faces.Continue Reading Op-Ed Pitch Thread

Information, but Meaning? The Value of Genomics

Science & Justice Working Group Meeting
Andro Hsu with discussion by Ted Goldstein and Whitney Boesel

November 9, 2011

Engineering 2, Room 599

4:15-6:15 PM

Andro Hsu (VP of Products at GigaGen and former science writer and policy advisor at 23andMe) will join us for a discussion of what we are learning—both about policy/society and biology—as increasing resources are put into turning the ever growing amounts of genomic information into something of value. Ted Goldstein, PhD candidate at the UCSC Center for Biomolecular Sciences and Engineering, will provide a response to Hsu presentation.