Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This article, the second of two, argues that conceptualizing the socioecological fix involves understanding how fixed capital, as a produced production force, can transform the socioecological conditions and forces of production while also securing the hegemony of particular social hierarchies, power relations, and institutions. We stress that fixed capital is inherently political–ecological in its constitution and how it shapes socioecological processes of landscape transformation. Fixed capital necessarily congeals socioecological materials and processes and can be understood as a produced form of nature tied to the circulation of value and the deployment of social labor. Fixed capital is therefore inherently metabolic and internalizes and transforms socioecologies. We also discuss the fixing of capital within socioecological landscapes as processes involving both the formal and real subsumption of nature. We emphasize the dual role of fixed capital formation in shaping the socioecological conditions and forces of production and, more broadly, of everyday life. Thus, we argue, fixed capital formation as a metabolic process cannot be fully conceptualized in narrowly economic terms. We turn to Gramsci and some recent work in political ecology to argue that socioecological fixes need to be understood in ideological terms and specifically in the establishment and contestation of hegemony.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Michael Ekers
University of Toronto
Scott Prudham
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Annals of the American Association of Geographers
University of Toronto
The Scarborough Hospital
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Ekers et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1db83e16e71770b9ce2975 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1309963