Content uploaded by Dimas D. Laksmana
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dimas D. Laksmana on Mar 14, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
ASIEN 160/161 (Juli/Oktober 2021), S. 210–220
Forschung und Lehre
Principles of Critical Development Studies:
A Minifesto
Martina Padmanabhan, Samia Dinkelaker, Mareike Hoffmann,
Dimas Laksmana, Siti Maimunah, Elena Rudakova, Enid Still,
and Friederike Trotier
University of Passau
Why we want to become the chair of
“Critical Development Studies—Southeast Asia”
Renaming the chair of “Comparative development and Cultural studies with a
focus on Southeast Asia” to “Critical Development Studies—Southeast Asia” is the
outcome of an intense intellectual, political and yet intimate process over the last
three years. In autumn 2019 a group of international students from the MA
Development Studies program reported the shock of experiencing racism in study
groups and when looking for shared housing. While confined to online teaching,
during class one student found the courage to share their experience of a racist
incident on public transport in Passau, the perpetrator humiliating him before
vanishing into anonymity.
These distressing and painful aggressions urged us to start reflecting on our
responsibilities and capabilities, as a chair at the university, to act upon
discrimination and racism which still permeate higher education, and the field we
teach - development practice. During regular research labs over the last year, we
read and discussed texts and debates from critical theory and perspectives from
fields such as feminist political ecology (FPE), post-development, decolonial
theory and new area studies. This process of learning, unlearning and relearning
built up to this minifesto. Following Kallis (2018), we call this a minifesto because
unlike a manifesto, which would present our grand theory or idea, we present here
a collection of small but significant ideas. We believe these ideas and the
commitment to pluralism will help shape the teaching practice and learning
environment at the chair.
Through this process, we have come to the understanding of “Critical Development
Studies” as a way of recognizing development studies and development practice
Principles of Critical Development Studies: A Minifesto 211
itself, as a power-laden field of knowledge production. As a collection of diverse
practices, development is temporally and spatially situated, and is rooted in
colonialism, mirroring histories in higher education institutions Acknowledging
these tensions we intend to keep the chair’s origin in Southeast Asian Studies and
yet work with critical academic perspectives in different social science disciplines
to transform it into meaningful university research and teaching in the 21st century.
The following sections outline the principles and epistemological communities
which inform our teaching, research, and public engagement of critical
development studies.
Addressing intersectional inequalities at the university and in
development cooperation
Oppressive structures are seldom one-dimensional. On the contrary,
intersectionality suggests social identities are formed by various intersecting
dimensions of oppression and privilege (Crenshaw 1991). Therefore, an
intersectional approach allows us to understand the interlinkages between different
forms of discrimination (Hoffmann 2021), enabling researchers to shed light on
how different forms of inequality interact and may exacerbate each other.
Furthermore, this approach does not understand inequalities as only accumulative
but also co-constituting particular experiences of oppression (Crenshaw 1991;
Mollett and Faria 2018). We believe that we need to address structural, political,
and representational intersectionality in academia and development studies to
realize the different potentials of both fields (Carastathis 2014). This involves
raising awareness of the interconnection and co-constitution of different
dimensions of discrimination based on race, class, gender, caste, sexuality,
religion, ability, physical appearance, language etc., instead of treating them
separately. Universities can play a significant role in reinforcing such structures if
they are ignored or not sufficiently addressed. At the same time, this pivotal role
carries great potential to drive social change.
We recognize the responsibility of the university to position itself in ongoing
debates around power, privilege and intersectionality in the academic context and
to act accordingly. Therefore, we seek to deconstruct social and cultural forms of
power to reveal discrimination and privilege that are often not addressed in
mainstream education and challenge them through research, teaching and public
engagement. For instance, we support safe spaces for students to talk about racism
and the university’s ongoing anti-racism work (Laksmana, Still and Padmanabhan
2021). Concrete activities include creating platforms for current debates in our
weekly research colloquium and continuously developing our reading list to reflect
plural epistemological approach to teaching. Furthermore, we offer an annual
seminar introducing intersectionality and decoloniality, exploring what they mean
in the context of higher education. These different activities are designed to
212 Martina Padmanabhan et al.
encourage critical reflections on power and intersectionality in our seminars and
beyond.
Why we promote a relational approach to the social, political,
and the ecological
One of our aims is a critical reflection on various inequalities in development
practices and scholarship. The metrices of development that delimit the
‘developed’ and ‘developing’ were established in the post-second world period,
after the collapse of European empires (Escobar 1994). Despite the success of
decolonization movements across the world, the new geopolitical order was rooted
in existing colonial power structures. These historical underpinnings create
imbalances between so-called developed and developing countries that are now
being recognized and critically addressed. Such economic and political power
imbalances, which manifest in multiple ways, create a culture and system of
dominance and oppression that allows those members of society holding a
dominant position to reap the benefits of the system, independent of whether they
are supportive of it or not. This system of privilege is often referred to as invisible
power or assets, as it often remains unacknowledged and obscured by institutional
structures (Bhopal 2018). These systemic conditions are further obscured when
experiences of inequality are presented as individual incidents instead of structural.
Being able to overlook discriminatory patterns and systems of oppression is only
possible from a position of privilege, therefore reflecting on positionality is
essential to undoing these systemic inequalities (Idahosa and Bradbury 2020;
Sultana 2007).
We therefore aim at learning and teaching about different ways of seeing that
allows us to realize the links between location, positionality and intersectionality,
and takes into account the relationality of our knowledge and experience
(Padmanabhan 2022). Relationality assumes that the "meaning of self is never
individual, but a shifting set of relations that we move in and out of, often without
reflection” (Rowe 2005: 25). This being-in-relation points to understanding
subjectivities as starting from the social relations which constitute our everyday
life (Nightingale 2011). A politics of relation therefore centers belonging as a place
to think from—to critically understand situatedness, positionality and
intersectionality. To interrogate these different ways of seeing in the contexts of
the university, we need to look at the relational conditions out of which our seeing
arises.
There are many critical theoretical and methodological contributions which can be
drawn on for this purpose. Feminist political ecology (FPE) seeks to understand
how power operates within socio-ecological relations, focusing on intersectional
perspectives that highlight everyday and marginalized experiences, such as multi-
species caring practices and the co-constitution of human and non-human political
subjectivities (Nightingale, 2013; Singh, 2013; Desai and Smith, 2018; Leder et al.,
Principles of Critical Development Studies: A Minifesto 213
2019; Sato and Soto Alarcón, 2019; Elmhirst, 2020; Harcourt, 2021; Sultana,
2021) This lens and the work by FPE enables us to understand what is meant by
relationality in its most simple sense—experience as primarily relational, rather
than through the prism of the individual (Rocheleau and Roth, 2007; Nightingale,
2011; Bawaka Country et al., 2013; Padmanabhan 2022). This enables us to
disrupt colonial ways of seeing that reduce complex relations to binaries and
produce hierarchies based upon narrowly defined concepts of what it means to be
human, such as heteronormativity, gender hierarchies, racial hierarchies,
knowledge hierarchies. At the chair we therefore want to incorporate critical theory
and method, such as FPE, that explicitly complicates the way in which human and
more-than-human relations are represented and reproduced in the academic
environment into our teaching syllabi and research.
Bringing area studies into conversation with critical
development studies
With its regional focus on Southeast Asia, the chair is committed to engaging with
area studies and, in particular, to contributing to debates on decoloniality in the
discipline. This includes the ethics of how we conduct research in Southeast Asia,
the way we cooperate with partners and how international power structures in
academia collide with approaches like transdisciplinarity (Padmanabhan 2018).
The University of Passau looks back on a long history of Southeast Asian Studies.
In 1984, the University of Passau was the first German university to establish a
chair in Southeast Asian Studies. Bernhard Dahm, the first chair to be appointed,
shaped the character of Southeast Asian Studies at the university, focusing on the
legacy of pre-colonial cultural traditions and its effect on countries in the post-
colonial era. Courses on a range of topics, such as modern history, languages and
literature, anthropology, urbanism and environment have been offered throughout
the years. From the start, the syllabus of the chair included Southeast Asian
language courses with close relationships to research and teaching agendas.
We are aware of this important heritage and intend to build on and continue our
involvement in the field. The chair has developed strong networks inside and
outside of academia with partners in Southeast Asia, in other Asian countries and
in Europe, and continues to strengthen these collaborations through joint research
and exchange. Currently, the research and teaching of the chair focuses on socially
relevant issues in Southeast Asia including the analysis of development and
transformation processes in urban and rural settings (Trotier 2021, Padmanabhan
2020), social-ecological research towards sustainable society-nature relations
(Rudokova 2020, Keilbart this volume), intersectionality, gender inequality and
decoloniality (Maimunah this volume). The aim to make situated knowledge on
these topics visible and relevant in global debates motivates our engagement in
research projects and classroom teaching alike.
214 Martina Padmanabhan et al.
Within the environment of the university, the chair aims to strengthen networks
between different area studies and to elicit debates on diverse topics such as the
role of area studies at (German) universities, fruitful cooperation between language
training and lectures/seminars, and possibilities to advance the undergraduate
International Cultural and Business Studies program.
The knowledge we consume, produce, and teach is “situated
knowledge”
The chair’s historical roots in Southeast Asian studies inform our thinking on the
interlinkages between positionality, politics of representation, and reading lists
(including citation practice) in academia. As scholars and scholar-activists as part
of an institution of higher education, we represent “others,” but also “us,” through
our research, writing, and teaching (Millora et al. 2019). These processes are
central in knowledge production (Chua and Mathur 2018), but also in how we
relate to and interact with other human and non-human existence. As co-
constitution of margins and centers is embedded in academic practices, we
emphasise how marginalization is reproduced in relation to the situatedness of
knowledge claims (Sultana 2020). The shared concern in “research and practice
that empowers and promotes social and ecological transformation for women and
other marginalized groups” (Elmhirst 2020) in FPE informs this thinking (Still this
volume, Maimunah this volume).
We acknowledge that where we speak from is a composition of our disciplinary
backgrounds and positionality. The former are tightly linked to particular bodies of
literature, while the latter is bound to particular culture and relations of power.
These aspects have implications on the centering and marginalization of different
ways of knowing and doing. Nevertheless, as a way to cultivate plurality of
knowledge and avoid canonization, we investigate development studies using sets
of concepts and practices instead of sets of texts and scholars. The choice of
reading list and citation practice matter (see Mills 2021).
In addition, we are aware of how knowledge production in academia is shaped by
broader political economy, which has implications on who is represented by
whom, through what means, and whose knowledge counts. Therefore, in our
international research collaborations and teaching, we recognize the precarity and
the differentiated material conditions of other scholars and students (see for
example Fernandez et al. 2018).
Knowledge only exists in plural
Colonial ways of knowing and seeing have sought to reduce the multiplicity of
ways of being in the world. Logics of civilization and progress, which fueled
practices of exploitation and capital accumulation, were foundational to the
colonial project. They continue to shape contemporary global processes such as
Principles of Critical Development Studies: A Minifesto 215
food production and consumption, knowledge production and extractivism. The
moral, political, economic and social dimensions of these processes have become
embedded in capitalist societies (Akram-Lodhi et al. 2021).The capitalist
organization, for instance, of globalized food consumption, fossil fuel
consumption, and international development practice has become normalized to the
extent that the violence involved in capitalist modes of production and
reproduction has become invisible. Assumptions about the supremacy of a
particular type of scientific knowledge and accompanying ideologies of economic
progress and growth reinforce this concealment of violence. The normalization of
these practices and narratives, leaves little room for the multiplicity of knowledge
and ways of being that inform and shape people’s lives and their environments
(Chakrabarty 2000).
These hegemonic ways of seeing and knowing in the field of development have
their roots in the university and have been critiqued by anti-colonial thinking and
practice in the Global South, as well as by other oppressed groups in the Global
North, since pre-independence times (see for example, Cooper 1892; Kumarappa
1984). Whilst decoloniality as a political process has been historically related to
the reclaiming of land, livelihood and self-governance (Tuck and Yang 2012),
scholars have more recently been calling for a decolonization of the academe and
knowledge production, as a key site of colonial control that has continuities in
relation to how knowledge is produced and taught today (Bhambra, Gebrial, and
Nişancıoğlu 2018). The decolonization of knowledge enables inquiry into the ways
colonialism functioned in parts of the world where settler colonialism didn’t occur
such as in Southeast Asia (Bhambra et al. 2018). Post-colonial scholarship,
unravels and contests the ways in which colonization occurs not only through the
dispossession of land of indigenous communities, but also through knowledge
production processes, cultural manipulation or appropriation, discourse or other
forms of representation. This is integral to an understanding of the coloniality of
knowledge (Spivak 1990, Mohanty 1984, Said 2016, see also Bhambra 2014).
Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2018, 2) argues that the epistemologies of the south
have been made absent through post-colonial unequal relations of power. These
epistemologies “...necessarily invoke other ontologies (disclosing modes of being
otherwise, those of the oppressed and silenced peoples, peoples that have been
radically excluded from the dominant modes of being and knowing).” We agree
with de Sousa Santos that “redeeming them is an eminently political gesture” (ibid,
pp.3) and one that is necessary for us as actors within the university, an institution
involved in hegemonic knowledge production. Rather than contribute to the
silencing, we want to explore the possibilities to change the conditions that
maintain silences in the knowledge we draw upon for our teaching, research and
public engagement. This position of relative power within the knowledge
production process means that there is a possibility, through careful and creative
inquiry and praxis (Laksmana forthcoming), to not only make visible the
epistemologies that have been silenced or obscured but to engage with them in our
216 Martina Padmanabhan et al.
own practices of research, teaching and public engagement at the university. For
example, in development studies we aim to bring into the curriculum and work
with activist knowledge and experience that often contradicts conventional
developmentalist thinking. Furthermore, as a chair with a focus on Southeast Asia,
we believe it is important to consciously involve scholars from Southeast Asia who
critically address issues of development and transformation, sustainable society-
nature relations, as well as intersectional relations of power in all areas of our
work—research, teaching and public engagement. We recognize these
commitments to pluralizing knowledge production as an important act within a
broader project of decolonizing the university.
We need to unlearn universities as centers in the “colonial
matrix of power”
Tracing the university’s colonial continuities is not a very difficult task. Coloniality
is embedded in its materiality and memorialization practices, its economic
foundations, the hegemony of scientific knowledge, and the Euro-American bias
and whiteness of the curriculum. We can therefore “see” colonialism in both
material things and immaterial practices at the university.
Materiality of colonialism in universities
The coloniality of educational institutions is perhaps most visible in countries such
as the UK, where the materiality of those institutions still embodies the colonialists
themselves and their practices of “collection” of artefacts, culture and ethnographic
data. This is evident in libraries, museums and statues that serve as a constant
reminder (more often than not, a celebratory one) of the colonial histories that still
condition everyday life in and outside the university. In Germany, controversies
around the Berlin Humboldt Forum triggered a debate on the colonial amnesia of
the German public and political leaders. In September 2021, the museum opened in
the replica of the former Hohenzollern royal palace. Art pieces appropriated and
plundered by German colonizers were relocated from Berlin Dahlem to the
Humboldt Forum, despite longstanding repatriation demands, for example by the
government of Nigeria.
Universities have also been sites of resistance against such colonial amnesia. The
Rhodes Must Fall movement, which began at the University of Cape Town and
later spread to universities across the African Continent, the UK and the US, called
for a decolonization of university spaces and curricula (Bhambra et al. 2018). In
removing the statue of Cecil Rhodes, they challenged the uncritical and often
celebratory memorialization of Rhodes and drew attention to the multiple ways in
which the university institution remained a colonial institution, overshadowed by
statues of various colonial figures (Gebrial 2018).
Principles of Critical Development Studies: A Minifesto 217
Immateriality of colonialism in universities
The symbolism of this acquired wealth is not only found in statues but also in the
types of knowledge that are taught and whose knowledge(s) are given space in the
curriculum. The collective colonial mindset, developed through an ideology of
empire and white supremacy and inculcated through educational institutions (Horn
1988; Linne 2017), worked in tandem with extractive and exploitative economic
policies and practices that reaffirmed the power of the colonial metropoles and
their capitalist elite. Reflecting this system of oppression, universities today,
founded with colonial wealth, maintain global social and economic hierarchies that
were established during colonial rule, through homogenous curriculums that do not
engage with knowledges outside the established norms of “the scientific,” and by
working predominantly with scholarship from European or North American
Institutions.
In German universities, whilst the materiality of colonial histories is less visible in
statues and memorialization, the colonial continuities become apparent when
students and institutions choose to investigate and reflect on their colonial past. At
the chair, we are engaging with the history of former colonial schools whose
successor institutions turned into sites of development studies. In North Hesse’s
Witzenhausen, members of the chair have been learning how such an institution
addresses the legacy of the “Colonial School for Agriculture, Trade and Industry,”
which at the turn of the 20th century was established to educate young German
men who were going to work as agricultural professionals in the former German
colonies. Given the permeation of coloniality through institutions all over
Germany, we welcome any collaboration with initiatives that seek to uncover the
traces of colonial history in Passau. Such traces can, for instance, be found at the
“Africa museum” in the Schweiklberg monastery Vilshofen, which exhibits
artefacts and culture brought by missionaries to the district of Passau.
The historically engrained and interwoven power dynamics, or what Quijano
(2000) more succinctly refers to as a “colonial matrix of power,” will continue to
be maintained unless scholars and universities actively attempt to unlearn these
normative practices and actively make space for other epistemologies and
ontologies to inform teaching, research and public engagement.
Principles of Critical Development Studies at the University of
Passau
• Address intersectional inequalities at the university and in development
cooperation
• Promote a relational approach to the social, political, and the ecological
• Bring area studies Southeast Asia into conversation with critical
development studies
218 Martina Padmanabhan et al.
• Recognize the knowledge we consume, produce, and teach as “situated
knowledge”
• Acknowledge and engage with a plurality of knowledge(s)
• Interrogate the role of universities in the “colonial matrix of power”
• Problematize the materiality and immateriality of colonialism in
universities
The outlined principles are the results of an ongoing process of discussion. We
invite students, researchers, activists, and practitioners to join the discussion. We
welcome you to shape curricula, craft research, and create spaces with us where we
can reflect together on “Critical Development Studies.” To get in touch, contact
Prof Padmanabhan: martina.padmanabhan@uni-passau.de.
References
Akra m-Lodhi, A. Haroon, Kristina Dietz, Bettina Engels, and Ben M. McKay. 2021. Handbook of
Critical Agrarian Studies. Cheltenham: Edward E lgar .
Bawaka Country, Sa ndie Suchet-Pearson, Sarah Wright, Kate Lloyd, and Laklak Burarrwanga. 2013.
“Caring as Country: Towards an Ontology of Co-Becoming in Natural Resource Management.”
Asia Pacific Viewpoint 54(2): 185–97.
Bhambra, Gurminder K. 2014. “Postcolonial and Decolonial Dialogu es.” Postcolonial Studies 17(2):
115–21.
Bhambra, Guminder, Dalia Gebrial, and Kerem Nişancıoğlu, eds. 2018. Decolonising the University.
London: Pluto Press.
Bhopal, Kalwant. 2018. White Privilege. The Myth of a Post-Racial Society. Bristol: Polity Press.
Carastathis, Anna. 201 4. “T he Concept o f Inter secti onality in Feminist T heory.” Philosophy Compass
9/5: 304–14.
Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence
against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241–99.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference.
Princet on: Pri nceto n University Pr ess.
Chua, L iana, and Nayanik a Mathur. 2018 . “Intr oducti on: Who ar e ‘we’? ”. I n Who are 'We'?
Reimagining Alterity and Affinity in Anthropology, edited by Liana Chua and Nayanika Mathur, 1–
34.
Chua, Liana, and Nayanika Mathur, eds. 2018. Who are 'We'? Reimagining Alterity and Affinity in
Anthropology. New York and Oxfor d: Berghah n Books.
Cooper, Anna Julia. 1892. A Voice from the South: A Black Woman of the South. Electronic. Xenia,
Ohio: The Aldine Printing House. https://docsouth.unc.edu/church/cooper/cooper.html.
Desai, Shruti and Harriet Smith. 2018. “Kinship across Species: Learning to Care for N onhuma n
Others.” Feminist Review 118(1): 41–60.
De Sousa Santos, Boaventura. 2018. The End of the Cognitive Empire: The Coming of Age of
Epistemologies of the South. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Elmhirst, Rebecca. 2020. “Beyond handbook tyrannies: Pluralising the practice of feminist political
ecology.” In Undisciplined Environments.
https://undisciplinedenvironments.org/2020/09/22/beyond-handbook-tyranni es-pluralising-the-
practice-of-feminist-political-ecology/.
Principles of Critical Development Studies: A Minifesto 219
Escobar , A. 1994. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World.
Princet on Universit y Press.
Fernandez, M, et al. 2018. Cuba’s agrifood system in transition, an introduction to the Elementa
Special Feature. Elem Sci Anth, 6: 75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.335.
Gebrial, Dalia. 2018. “Rhodes Must Fall: Oxford and Movements for Change.” In Decolonising the
University, edited by G. K. Bhambra, D. Gebrial, and K. Nişan cıoğlu, 19 –36. London: Pluto Press.
Harcourt, Wendy. 2021. “Rethinking Life-in-Common in the Australian Landscape.” Environment and
Planning E: Nature and Space 0(0): 251484862198960.
Hoffmann, Mareike. 2021. Youth, Masculinity and Catcalling: An Intersectional Feminist Approach to
Fighting Sexual Harassment in Public Places. MA thesis, University of Passau. Unpublished.
Horn, Pamela. 1988. “English Elementa ry Education and the growth of t he imperial ideal.” In ‘Benefits
Bestowed’?: Education and British Imperialism, edited by J. A. Manga n, 39–55. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Idahosa, Grace Ese Osa, and Vanessa Bradbury. 2020. “Challenging the Way We Know the World:
Overcoming Paralysis and Utilising Discomfort through Critical Reflexive Thought.” Acta
Academica 52(1): 31–53.
Kallis, G. 2018. In Defense of Degrowth: Opinions and Minifestos. Uneven Earth Press.
Keilbart Patrick. 2022. “Integrating or ganic farming into the Indonesian bi oeconomy? Su staina ble
agriculture between pro ducti vism a nd de ep ecology.” ASIEN 161/161 (this volume): 87–117.
Kumarappa, Joseph Chelladurai. 1984. Economy of Permanence. Varanasi: Sarva Seva Sangh
Prakashan.
Laksmana, Dima s Dwi. Under review. Farmers’ creativity and cultivated senses: The immediacy of
embodied knowledge in alternative agriculture. Engaging Science, T echnology, and Society.
Laksmana, Di mas D wi, Enid Sti ll, and Martina Padmanabha n. 202 1. We need to talk about racism. An
invitation to join a conversation about racism at the University of Passau. A statement of the Chair
of Comparative Development and Cultural Studies – Southeast Asia on: Decoloniality and
empathy: Towards education that matters in our time. Accessed January 25, 2022.
https://www.phil.uni-passau.de/en/southeast-asian-s tudi es/ stu dy-and-teaching/.
Leder, St ephanie, Fra ser Sugden, Ma nita Raut, Dhananjay Ray, and Panchali Saikia. 2019.
“Ambivalences of Collective Farming: Feminist Political Ecologies from the Eastern Gangetic
Plains.” International Journal of the Commons 13(1): 105.
Linne, Karsten. 2017. Von Witzenhausen in die Welt: Ausbildung und Arbeit von Tropenlandwirten
1898-1971. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag.
Maimunah, Siti. 2022. “At the Ca pitalist Frontier: Changing the Riverine Ethnic Identity in Central
Kalimantan.” ASIEN 160/161 (this volume): 63–86.
Millora, C., Siti Ma imuna h, and Enid Still. 2020. “Reflecting on the ethics of phd research in the global
south: Reciprocity, reflexivity and situatedness”. Acta Academica, 52(1): 10–30. doi:
10.18820/24150479/aa52i1/SP2.
Mills, Mara. 2021. “Introduction: ‘ Citation N etworks as Antidiscriminatory Practice’”. Catalyst:
Feminism, Theory, Technoscience 7 (2), 1–3.
Mohanty, Chandra. 1984. “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses.”
Boundary 2 12 (3), 333–358.
Mollett, Sharlene, and Caroline Faria. 2018. “The Spatialities of Intersectional Thinking: Fashioning
Feminist Geographic Futures.” Gender, Place & Culture 25(4): 565–77.
Nightingale, Andrea. 2013. “Fishing for Nature: The Politics of Subj ectivity and Emotion i n Scot tish
Inshore Fisheries Management.” Environment and Planning A 45(10): 2362–2378.
Nightingale, Andrea J. 2011. “Bounding Difference: Intersectionality and the Material Production of
Gender, Caste, Cla ss and Envi ronment in Nepal.” Geoforum 42(2): 153–162.
220 Martina Padmanabhan et al.
Padmanabhan, Martina. 2022. “Mulai leave – datang arrive – pulang return. Working the field together:
A feminist mother–son journey in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.” In Feminist Methodologies, edited by
Karjin van den Berg, Jacqueli ne Gaybor T obar, Constance Depui s, an d Wen dy Harcourt. Palgra ve.
Padmana bhan, Martina. 2020. “Navigating the urban rural frontier in Yogyakarta.” In Southeast Asian
Transformations: Urban and Rural Developments in the 21st Century, edited by Sandra Kurfürst
and Stefanie Wehner, 9–24. Bielefeld: transcript. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839451717-002.
Padmanabhan, Martina, ed. 2018. Transdisciplinary Research and Sustainability. Collaboration,
Innovation and Transformation. London: Routledge.
Quijano, Aníbal. 2000. “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America.” Nepantla: Views
from South 1 (3): 533–580. https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/23906.
Rocheleau, Dianne, and Robin Roth. 2007. “Rooted Networks, Relational Webs and Powers of
Connection: R ethinking Human and Political Ecologies.” Geoforum 38(3): 433–437.
Rowe, Aimee Carrillo, 2005. “Be Longing: Toward a Feminist Politics of Relatio n.“ NWSA Journal,
17(2): 15–46. doi: 10.2979/nws.2005.17.2.15.
Rudokova, El ena. 2020. Network of energy transition in Indonesia: Special role of COVID-19 as a non-
human actor. MA the sis, University of Passau. Unpublished.
Said, Edward. 2016. Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient. Penguin Books.
Sato, Chizu and Jozelin María Soto Alarcón. 2019. “Toward a Postcapitalist Feminist Political
Ecology’s Ap proach to the Common s and Common ing.” International Journal of the Commons
13(1): 36.
Singh, Neera M. 2013. “The Affective Labor of Growing Forests and the Becoming of Environmental
Subjects: Rethinki ng Environ mentality in Odi sha, I ndia.” Geoforum 47: 189–198.
Spivak, Gayatri Cha krav orty, and Sarah Harasym. 1990. The Post-Colonial Critique: Interviews,
Strategies, Dialogues. London: Routledge.
Still, Enid. 2022. “Untangling agri cultural et hics. Women’s collective agricu lture i n India as
alterbiopoliti cs.” ASIEN 160/161 (this volu me): 17–42.
Sultana, Far hana. 2007. “Re flexivity , Positionali ty an d Participatory Ethics: Neg otiati ng Fi eldwork
Dilemmas in International Research.” ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies
6(3): 374–85.
Sultana, Farhana. 2021. “Political ecology 1: From margins to center.” Progress in Human Geography,
45(1): 156–165. doi: 10.1177/0309132520936751.
Trotier, Friederike. 2020. Nation, City, Arena – Sports Events, Nation Building and City Politics in
Indonesia. Kopenhagen: NIAS press.
Tuck, Eve, and K. Wayne Yang. 2012. “Decolonization is not a metaphor.” Decolonization:
Indigeneity, Education & Society 1 (1): 1–40.
Acknowledgements
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020
research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant
agreement No 764908.