Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*RYHUQDQFHLQ5XUDO0RQJROLD
Daniel J. Murphy
3XEOLVKHGE\*HRUJH:DVKLQJWRQ8QLYHUVLW\,QVWLWXWHIRU(WKQRJUDSKLF
5HVHDUFK
DOI: 10.1353/anq.2014.0051
Access provided by UFSCAR-Universidade Federal de Sao Carlos (13 Oct 2014 15:04 GMT)
SPECIAL COLLECTION:
Hybrid Landscapes: Science, Conservation,
and the Production of Nature
ABSTRACT
This article constitutes an attempt to understand political transforma-
tions in a pastoral region of eastern Mongolia where senior men, their kin
groups, and the ecologieshuman and non-humanthat bind them have
become central nodes in the territorial operation of governance. This po-
litical assemblage has emerged in what I call the balance of mastery,
a tense, uneven entanglement of landscape and authority. The argument
combines scholarly interests in political ontologies with analyses of neolib-
eral governmentality and rural social change. As such, the article traces the
circulation of power, in its various human and non-human guises, through
this landscape in ways that demonstrate the productive consequences of
unequal agency, including the shifting relations of risk and vulnerability in a
dynamic ecology of rule. [Keywords: Neoliberalism, environmental gover-
nance, political ontologies, pastoralism, Mongolia]
Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 87, No. 3, p. 759-792, ISSN 0003-5491. 2014 by the Institute for
Ethnographic Research (IFER) a part of the George Washington University. All rights reserved.
759
Ecology of Rule: Territorial Assemblages and Environmental Governance in Rural Mongolia
Introduction
In this article, I attempt to explain how senior men, their kin groups, and
the ecologieshuman and non-humanthat bind them have become
central nodes in the territorial operation of governance in rural Mongolia.
This political assemblage has emerged in the context of recent efforts by
the state and other actors to upset what I call the balance of mastery,
a tense, uneven entanglement of landscape and authority through which
territory is organized and governed. These efforts, such as the promotion
and institutionalization of neoliberal initiatives including community-based
natural resource management and possession leasing of campsites, have
been successfully implemented in Uguumur, where this research was con-
ducted, but not universally successful elsewhere in the region and coun-
try (Upton 2011). As such, this article aims to understand this success in
Uguumur, a remote pastoral district in rural Mongolia, and what this might
say about how neoliberalism and its incumbent practices and discourses
become territorialized in particular places.
Combining recent work on indigenous ontologies (Blaser 2009;
Cruikshank 2005; de la Cadena 2010; Nadasdy 2002, 2007) and the an-
thropology of worlds (Kohn 2007) with political ecological analyses of
neoliberal governmentalities (Agrawal 2005, Ferguson and Gupta 2002,
Sharma 2008, Moore 2005, Murray Li 2007), I argue that by de-centering
neoliberalism and engaging a broader consideration of political ontolo-
gies in our analyses, anthropologists can understand how neoliberalism
and neoliberal projects become territorialized and made to work. Such a
move complements and expands our analyses by providing a fuller under-
standing of how spatialized appropriation operates within such milieus and
how such workings can become themselves a kind of hybrid accumula-
tion by dispossession (Harvey 2001). Additionally, by taking the materiality
of albeit relational things seriously, we also more fully appreciate the very
real consequences such appropriation and dispossession entails.
Each of these points requires an analysis of the exercise, administra-
tion, and application of rule in particular places or emplaced governing.
Situated engagements in community based resource management and
property-making in rural Mongolia, key nodes of neoliberal development,
are therefore a proper ethnographic entry point. Here, we can trace the
circulation of power, in its various human and non-human guises, through
landscapes in ways that demonstrate the productive and material con-
sequences of unequal agency. In doing so, I argue, anthropologists can
760
Daniel J. Murphy
Background
Integral to state-led property-making and resource management is the
governance of population and territory underwritten by governmentalities
or the rationalities of rule (Dean 2010, Foucault 1991). In particular, signif-
icant anthropological research has focused on how property and commu-
nities, through the operation of obligations, duties, rights, and affect, have
become critical tools of the neoliberal state in producing rational modes of
self-rule (Agrawal 2005, Creed 2006, Ferguson and Gupta 2002, Li 2007,
Moore 2005, Sharma 2008, Tsing et al. 2005). The policies and programs
I discuss in this article are emblematic cases of neoliberal governmental-
ity. Possession leasing programs, described in detail below, emerge from
a neoliberal drive to free up nature so that it can be valued through the
application of labor (McCarthy and Prudham 2007). Moreover, devolving
management authority to individual citizens through such forms of muted
privatization lays bare the rational individuals drive for self-improvement
through investment and gain. Community-based resource management
programs, emergent from diverse discursive communities on both the left
and right, have resulted in the production of what Agrawal (2005:7) calls
regulatory communities. Such modalities rely on locally meaningful sub-
jectivities, positions, and modes of affect in conditioning self-rule, thereby
creating efficient governance and space for market imperatives.
As I describe below, through such initiatives, senior male authority with-
in kin groups has become a vital circuit for these state strategies. Clearly,
neoliberal modes of rule are implicated in rural environmental governance
in Uguumur. Yet, in many ways, narrowing our focus to studying the cir-
culation of neoliberal technologies limits our vision for seeing governing
as the result of a much broader entanglement of actors, processes, and
agencies (de la Cadena 2010). I argue that the actual activities of govern-
ing are produced in the interstices of variously interacting, conflicting, and,
at times, synergistic agencies engaged in a process of assembling.
761
Ecology of Rule: Territorial Assemblages and Environmental Governance in Rural Mongolia
762
Daniel J. Murphy
763
Ecology of Rule: Territorial Assemblages and Environmental Governance in Rural Mongolia
764
Daniel J. Murphy
765
Ecology of Rule: Territorial Assemblages and Environmental Governance in Rural Mongolia
juniors must generally ugend orokh (do as their seniors say) by literally
entering their word. This ideal act of deference is a key to harmonious
kin relations. As one wealthy, senior herder explained:
766
Daniel J. Murphy
shig khun or man like a mountain.7 Senior males are also revered for
their knowledge and experience which emanate from their practical and
spiritual relationship with the land (see quote above). Moreover, the sym-
bolic spatial organization of the ger (=yurt, traditional Mongolian dwell-
ing), rituals of birth and death, idol and ancestor worship, marriage rites,
and, most importantly, ritual mountain or ovoo worship (uul or ovoo takh-
ikh yus) all serve in multiple ways to reinforce and naturalize the material
foundations of senior male power. Many of these beliefs and practices
invoke patrilineal ideologies that symbolically tie men, particularly senior
men, to land in ways that afford them greater privilege.
It is through these practices that nutag, customary territory or home-
land, comes into being and is invested with meaning and value. Nutag is
made not simply through collective use of the land and in concert with
local environmental actants, but also through the enacting of social rela-
tionships via exchange within the group and ritually between the group
and the gazriin ezed (masters of the land), a kind of spiritual essence that
rules over the fate of its inhabitants (Humphrey 1995, Sneath 2001). This
ecology, and the various patron-client relationships which sustain it, are
centrally mediated by male social power via the patriline.8 This is evi-
dent in customary proprietary claims. In exploring campsite disputes, the
strongest claim to campsite mastery in Uguumur, a kind of custodial claim
and duty, was through patrilineal inheritance. As one herder explained:
these are campsites that people have come to possess from the
ancestors, their uvug, their fathers. For example, here on my camp-
site one of my relatives father and mother settled here in the past.
Exactly here on this campsite they were settling. And his children got
it from him and settled here. This is how it is here and now I am here.
The built-up layers of animal droppings (buuts)9 and other signs of long-
term use by patrilineal kin serve as evidence of a deep history of both lin-
eage and livelihood on the land. In this context, senior men have come to
occupy a privileged but not exclusive position in this hierarchy of mastery.
Territoriality
This broad ecology of power, constituted historically through the inter-
action of non-human and human actants, enacts a materially significant
767
Ecology of Rule: Territorial Assemblages and Environmental Governance in Rural Mongolia
768
Daniel J. Murphy
advantage of the large salt pan. The area is also surrounded by mountains
blocking the wind which minimizes the effect of adverse weather condi-
tions. It is also situated at low elevation allowing for rainwater pooling and
spring fog and dew build up. Around the salt pan is a vast quantity of feath-
ergrass as well, providing both protection from the wind and necessary for-
age in spring. Relative to other areas of the county, this is one of the most
ecologically advantageous for raising livestock. The area to the north close
to the river is called Khaya and also is a beneficial region with good quality
soda deposits, feathergrass, and river access. It is also low lying despite
the exposure to wind. Three wells dot the region allowing for widespread
pasture use. Two of these are operated and maintained as private wells
even though they are legally designated for public use. The well closest
to Batdalai was accorded to him, informally, during privatization. Although
he does not technically own it, he regulates its use. The middle well is
sparingly used as it is located in an area with poor forage. The well to the
east, however, is located in the middle of feathergrass. It was built and
maintained by Geserjav, a friend of the group. Because he does not move,
he acts as a kind of monitor (or uldsen ail, left-behind household) for the
group. This is a critical role in maintaining territorial control.
In the first map (Figure 2), we see that Batdalai has the most beneficial
campsite in Tukhum. He is protected from non-kin households by a semi-
circle of mountains running down the east, across the south and up the
southwest. The area is also buffered by a swath of extremely poor pasture
directly to the west and northwest (govi, or desert) and by the presence of
his fellow kin households to the northeast. He can easily drive his animals
back and forth to the river or throughout the small valley. He also has ac-
cess to the central road. Farther east and northeast, where other non-kin
households settle, are the youngest members of the group. It is these
households who experience conflict, theft, and attempt to expel other
households. Progressively older households who are closer to Batdalai
did not report encountering these problems. Although there are poor local
households that do camp close to him, the only other myangat (a wealthy
herder with 1,000 plus head of livestock) who settled in Tukhum in the past
has since left due to the groups aggressive efforts at expulsion. He now
camps west of the mountains.
These patterns, however, are not just a function of household fission
and settlement over time. When the group leaves on otor (outside their
regular movement patterns) collectively to other non-customary regions,
769
Ecology of Rule: Territorial Assemblages and Environmental Governance in Rural Mongolia
770
Daniel J. Murphy
from otor in the north. Yet, they arrived after Batdalais group and had to
locate themselves in a less advantageous positions. From here, Batdalai
can easily graze his herds up and down the valley with little threat from
these other households. However, in just a few weeks, the lack of salt pans
and soda even in the northern reaches near the river and the evaporation
of water pools to the south proved to be too much and so the group orga-
nized another move just east of the great Bayan Khuree mountain about
20 kilometers away (see Figure 4).
In Figure 4, we see a very similar settlement pattern, adapted as it is to
the local terrain. Batdalai has situated himself in a shallow valley between
two small mountains. Four of the junior households have also occupied
the three small valleys to the north. They are all protected on the east by a
long ridge running north and south. On the far side of the ridge to the east
771
Ecology of Rule: Territorial Assemblages and Environmental Governance in Rural Mongolia
772
Daniel J. Murphy
the group wintered here as well, moving camp only once to the north along
the stream in another series of valleys.
Other groups also practice these territorial strategies and, as I describe
below, recent policies and programs have further supported such prac-
tices. In home territories, these practices create a deep connection be-
tween resident groups and the land. We can see in the map of Uguumur
(Figure 5) the territorial location of kin and cooperative groups. This map
is a compilation of data from possession lease data, campsite data, in-
terview data, and ground observation. Across the district and county, lo-
cal place names of these customary regions are strongly associated with
particular kin groups. When someone refers to the region of Khaya, other
herders understand that this is the territorial nutag of Batdalais group and
to settle there potentially exposes one to khuukh (expulsion). Moreover,
these landscapes are marked by shuutdeg uul (or mountains of worship)
and are objects of intense devotion and instill an intimate identification
and sense of belonging to these specific territories. Consequently, each
of these spaces, through everyday practice and mountain worship rituals,
over time has become associated with kin groups and their senior males.
Moreover, the role of mountains and other non-human actants dem-
onstrates the way that the landscape actively participates in the con-
stitution of such territorialities rather than acting as an inert arena in
which herders navigate nature like players on the stage. Mountains,
for instance, and the spirits that dwell in them are capable of bestowing
buyan khishig (good fortune) as well as bad fates on those who inhabit
their lands. Herders must engage in proper, ritualized exchange in order
to curry favor and minimize offensive actions that evoke the mountains
wrath. Rain rituals in late spring beckon favor from the mountain spirits
(gazriin ezed) and father sky (ezen tengger) and appease their appetites.
If such prestations are lacking or if spirits become offended, mountains
and their spirits can enact serious calamity through drought and winter
storms, potentially laying waste to a familys herd. The material agency of
this spiritual ecology is a critical element in forming the balance of territo-
rial mastery in Uguumur.
Even in the absence of such spiritual ecologies, non-human agencies
are ever-present. Events like the sudden onset of tumbleweeds, flash
flooding, blizzards, freezing rain, and other uncertainties evince an im-
mense material power in the lives of Uguumur herders. Even more proba-
bilistic eventslike wolf and eagle predation, patchy forage distribution,
773
Ecology of Rule: Territorial Assemblages and Environmental Governance in Rural Mongolia
Figure 5: Territorial locations of the eight major territorial kin groups. The
territorial divisions in some of the groups represent seasonal territorials.
Batdalais group is the darkest grey color.
MAP COMPILED AND CONFIGURED BY THE AUTHOR.
774
Daniel J. Murphy
775
Ecology of Rule: Territorial Assemblages and Environmental Governance in Rural Mongolia
776
Daniel J. Murphy
777
Ecology of Rule: Territorial Assemblages and Environmental Governance in Rural Mongolia
responsible citizens, but also can protect their traditional claims against
incursion or dispute.
In an unpublished, but widely circulated memo entitled What Should Be
Done, written by Enkh-Amgalan, then director of the most influential think-
tank on rural issues in Mongolia, states that the introduction of contracts
aims to make the protection and the efficient use of pasture resources a
matter of self-interest to herders (Enkh-Amgalan 2009).12 In other words,
state-level requirements for the protection and efficient use of resources
could be activated by motivating particular desires. Additionally, coordinat-
ing these policy initiatives through forms of community could negate equity
concerns by drawing on local moral economies of mutual aid and support.
Consequently, the possession leasing initiatives were incorporated in most
CBNRM (community-based natural resource management) and coopera-
tive programs, which he states are the easy solution to Mongolias cur-
rent pasture problems. In doing so, these measures would have a poverty
alleviation effect by mitigating the exclusionary systems that force poor
herders to the margins of the grassland. Enhancing the collective actions
among herders through strengthening the traditional customary arrange-
ments is seen as a key to achieving the project objectives of poverty allevi-
ation and rational resource management (Enkh-Amgalan 2009). Evidently,
connecting these exclusionary systems with the very communities these
programs seek to transform seems lost.
In Bayankhutag, where Uguumur is located, the International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD) implemented a local herder cooperative
project as an extension of their Rural Poverty Reduction Project (RPRP)
which began in 2003 and grew out of the increasing focus on the estab-
lishment of cooperative herders groups as a rural development pathway.
As stated in a 2008 RPRP pamphlet, the overall goal of the program is the
alleviation of poverty while at the same reducing the detrimental effects of
poor management of pastoral environments.13
During the seminar that I attended, the provincial project implementa-
tion unit (PIU) director reiterated these sentiments saying that the pas-
ture management component of the project seeks to do this by empow-
ering (chadavkhjuulakh) herders and strengthening (bekhjuulekh) rural
livelihoods primarily through cooperative groups (buleg or nuxurlul). The
core of the programs institutional activities in regards to herder groups
would be centered on ezemshuulex, a term which references the word
ezen (master) and the verb ezemshix (to possess/have mastery over).
778
Daniel J. Murphy
DIY Governance
The RPRP began in Khentii in 2003 along with the 3 other provinces:
Bulgan, Khuvsgul, and Selenge in the northwest. Bayankhutag county
where the research site Uguumur is locatedbegan program operations
in 2006. In the six years since the program began in Khentii province, 19
counties have benefitted directly. The Pasture Management division of
the program has helped establish 330 herder cooperatives groups in 19
counties. Of those 330, only 122 are currently operatingmostly in the far
northern regions where livelihoods are more settled and, as I describe in
detail below, in the south where increasing aridity and herd sizes are fos-
tering increased competition for resources.
Local governors across the province that I interviewed were quite wel-
coming of the program, seeing it as a critical governance tool. In their
view, since they could not regulate and monitor such a vast territory, herd-
ers must do it themselves (uursduu zokhitsuulakh), and cooperatives were
an important pathway for this kind of do-it-yourself governance. For
example, the district governor in Uguumur felt that, although the coop-
eratives were playing no role in reducing poverty or combating environ-
mental degradation, they were important for monitoring and regulating
land use. Despite negative sentiments from non-cooperative households,
cooperative herders also lauded the institutional governing capacity of
these groups because, as they argued, since decollectivization there is
no neme or support from administrators or governors, and now these
groups can do it themselves.14
779
Ecology of Rule: Territorial Assemblages and Environmental Governance in Rural Mongolia
780
Daniel J. Murphy
Hybrid Governance
Regardless of the degree to which governors and administrators support-
ed this program, this project has been a failure across the province as it
has not become the pathway for manageable, replicable rural governance
as envisioned by project designers, think-tanks, academics, parliamentar-
ians, and others. According to the project implementation unit director,
over half of the groups in the province have dissolved and the success of
the program has been atomized in the settled areas of the north and pock-
ets of the increasingly arid and highly nomadic south. Uguumur district has
been one of those successes and, although it has few groups compared
to other districts, the per capita participation is high with nearly half the
households in the district registered. Moreover, the groups tend to be large
and made up exclusively of actively herding households. When I left the
field, there were six official groups as well as two more in the process of
registering. Understanding why this program was a success in Uguumur is
important to demonstrating how governance is spatialized through these
groups. Yet, I argue that neither tracing neoliberal rationalities in project
70%
60%
Percent Leases Available
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
781
Ecology of Rule: Territorial Assemblages and Environmental Governance in Rural Mongolia
25
Temperature in Degrees Celsius
20
15
10
0
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Average July Temperature
350
300
Millimeters of Rainfall
250
200
150
100
50
0
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007
Annual Precipitation
782
Daniel J. Murphy
783
Ecology of Rule: Territorial Assemblages and Environmental Governance in Rural Mongolia
Herder: Since nature has become like this, where land and water are
becoming scarcewe formed this group to improve our livelihoods
and protect our pasture.
Daniel: How do you protect pasture?
H: We attempt to protect our customary territory ourselves and this
project allows us to do so.
D: What do you protect the pasture from?
H: We protect the pasture from other local households, outside
households, households on otor, whatever kind of household!
784
Daniel J. Murphy
Daniel: If there are a lot of households [neg door] its difficult, right
[to protect pasture]?
Ts: Yes, of course. Going like this the land, the grass, the water will
disappear. They will trample it and degrade it and will become bald.
D: These groups say they can protect pasture and so they form these
groups. In your opinion can they protect pasture?
Ts: No, they cannot. There are many animals. For example, if ten ail
are together [neg door], Luvsandorj has seven or eight under him,
they will eat up all the grass by going as one [neg yavax].
785
Ecology of Rule: Territorial Assemblages and Environmental Governance in Rural Mongolia
Conclusion
Former rights of mastery were an outcome of ones position in a dynamic
assemblage of intersecting agencies, a kind of tense ecology in which
spiritual forces, kinship-based modes of rule, and the various duties, ob-
ligations, and exchanges that sustain them were constituted in relation
with an active, lively landscape. This vibrant assemblage of differen-
tially distributed agencies, in the context of decentralization, produced
articulations of entitlement that privileged some and excluded others.
Yet as clients, competitors, or unruly neighbors, these other households
played critical roles in formulating this ecology of power. By demarcating
and limiting the space in which others can carry out livelihood activities
and shifting the tense balance of mastery through formalization, the state
has, in effect, dispossessed a large portion of rural society of their role in
formulating that very balance. It is through this incursion that neoliberal
786
Daniel J. Murphy
787
Ecology of Rule: Territorial Assemblages and Environmental Governance in Rural Mongolia
Acknowledgments:
Financial support for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation (Dissertation
Improvement Grant 0719863), Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Institute for
International Education Fulbright Program, Lambda Alpha National Honor Society, and the University
of Kentucky with institutional support from the National University of Mongolia, Center for Development
Research, and the American Center for Mongolian Studies. I would like to thank the people of Uguumur,
Bayankhutag, and Undurkhaan who were so welcoming, understanding, and caring throughout the re-
search and my various trials and tribulations. I would also like to acknowledge the support of Peter Little,
Lisa Cliggett, and other faculty in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Kentucky. Lastly, I
would like to extend a great deal of gratitude to Reade Davis and Laura Zanotti for organizing the session
that led to the development of this article and for investing great effort in bringing it to publication. Though
many contributed to this work, all errors of commission and omission are my own.
Endnotes:
1See Morten Pedersens (2011) work for examples from Mongolia.
2My use of the name Uguumur is somewhat arbitrary. The area is typically referred to as gurav dugaar
district or third district in local speech and on official documents as Tsantiin Ovoo. But third district is
too cumbersome and many would not recognize the name Tsantiin Ovoo. In the past, however, much of
the area was referred to as Uguumur, owing its namesake to a large mountain in the middle of the dis-
trict. Each area of the district has its own place name and many of these overlap into other districts and
counties.
3See the work of Rosenberg (1981), Humphrey (1978), and Goldstein and Beall (1994) for negdel
operations.
4See Sneath (2000, 2007) for similar arguments.
5Akh-duu can also be used to refer to friends and acquaintances more broadly (Humphrey 1995). Akh
in these contexts simply means someone who is older, and duu means someone who is younger.
Nevertheless, the senior-junior framework still operates in order to formulate an age-based hierarchy that
regulates the kinds of duties and obligations the relationship entails.
6The causative infix -lg- or -uul- shift the meaning of gar niilekh from unite the hands to make the hands
unite or gar niilekh.
7In Mongolian spiritual geographies, features of the landscape are differentiated in two primary ways: 1)
through gender and 2) through chadal or a kind of mystical power, force, and effectiveness (also ability). In
many ways, these two elements are mutually constitutive, as the spirits that inhabit and exhibit control or
possessiveness over space as masters are differentiated in such ways. These spirits baigali zoxiruulax,
or control nature (literally state of being) (Sneath 2001), and include deities, spirits, dragons, and other
beings that inhabit spaces like mountains and lakes. These spirits/landscape features (de la Cadenas
[2010] term earth-beings seems especially appropriate) are even given titles (like khan, king) and are
ascribed with characteristics normally reserved for humans (like buyantai, charitable). See Sukhbaatar
(2001) for detailed discussion.
8There is considerable scholarly work on these themes in Mongolian ethnography (see Sneath 2000,
Humphrey 1995, Humphrey and Onon 1996, Humphrey and Xurelbaatar 2006, Pedersen 2011, Empson
2011). In many ways, Uguumur seems to be on one end of the spectrum in terms of the salience of these
modalities in daily life. The dominance of these patrons in this particular locality does not necessarily
resonate in other locales. Much of this, I argue, can be attributed to the vast build-up of livestock wealth
in Uguumur. In other counties I visited, which were significantly poorer in livestock, the tendencies toward
strongly affiliated patron groups was more tempered. Even in Uguumur, there were counter-movements.
In fact, one cooperative group not discussed in this article was made up of youth; however, the group did
not survive longer than a year.
9Elsewhere, I describe the ways buuts connect patrilineal beliefs with notions of campsite rights (Murphy
2011).
10A 2005 Government of Mongolia report argues: cultural norms and mentalities dating to the socialist
times [which] have meant many within this group [poor herders] exhibit ready-made mentalities, are wel-
fare dependent, and lack their own initiative to escape their current conditions. In fact, in 1999, the Prime
Minister publicly stated that Mongolians must stop being nomads! since the continuance of mobile
livestock keeping was only a source of vulnerability to the Mongolian people (GOM 2005).
788
Daniel J. Murphy
11This is, however, highly debatable. There have been a number of local studies, principally in areas
around the capital that have shown increased degradation. Overall, though, there is little data that effec-
tively demonstrate that this is the case in more rural areas.
12The basic argument of this unpublished memo was previously published as Lets Decide the Pasture
Issue this Way Zunii Medee 30, Dec 18, 2007.
13This information is also available at www.ifad.mn.
14One non-cooperative household was angered by the fact that most households in the poverty reduc-
tion program were the wealthiest. He said to me, how can they reduce poverty, when none of them are
poor?!
15The number of campsites available is set by the county pasture management committee which is typi-
cally made up of the county governor, the district governors, the MoFALI (Ministry of Food, Agriculture,
and Light Industry) extension agent, and council representatives.
16In many ways, this is very similar to what occurred during the implementation of the household respon-
sibility system in Inner Mongolia (Williams 2002).
References:
Agrawal Arun. 2003. Sustainable Governance of Common Pool Resources: Context, Method, and
Politics. Annual Review of Anthropology 32:243-262.
____________. 2005. Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects. Durham:
Duke University Press.
Anderson, David G. 2000. Identity and Ecology in Arctic Siberia: The Number One Reindeer Brigade.
Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Berry, Sara. 1993. No Condition is Permanent: The Social Dynamics of Agrarian Change in Sub-Saharan
Africa. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Blaser, Mario. 2009. The Threat of Yrmo: the Political Ontology of a Sustainable Hunting Program.
American Anthropologist 111(1):10-20.
Brown, J. Christopher and Mark Purcell. 2005. Theres Nothing Inherent about Scale: Political Ecology,
the Local Trap, and the Politics of Development in the Brazilian Amazon. Geoforum 36:607-624.
Creed, Gerald. 2006. Reconsidering Community. In Gerald Creed, ed. The Seductions of Community:
Emancipations, Oppressions, Quandaries, 3-22. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
Cruikshank, Julie. 2005. Do Glaciers Listen?: Local Knowledge, Colonial Encounters, and Social
Imagination. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Dashnyam, Nachin. 2003. Sustainable Livestock Development in Mongolia. International Review for
Environmental Strategies 4(2):287-296.
de la Cadena, Marisol. 2010. Indigenous Cosmopolitics in the Andes: Conceptual Reflections Beyond
Politics. Cultural Anthropology 25(2):334-370.
Dean, Mitchell. 2010. Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage Publications.
Empson, Rebecca. 2011. Harnessing Fortune: Personhood, Memory, and Place in Mongolia. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Enkh-Amgalan. 2009. What Should be Done? Memo. Ulaanbaatar: Center for Policy Research.
Accessed from www.cpr.mn on June 13, 2014.
Enkhbat, Bararchyn and Ole Odgaard. 1996. Decentralization and Local Governance. In Ole Bruun and
Ole Odgaard, eds. Mongolia in Transition, 165-189. Richmond, UK: Curzon Press.
Ferguson, James and Akhil Gupta. 2002. Spatializing States: Notes Toward an Ethnography of Neoliberal
Governmentality. American Ethnologist 29(4):981-1002.
Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria and B. Batbuyan. 2004. Law and Disorder: Local Implementation of
Mongolias Land Law. Development and Change 35(1):141-165.
Foucault, Michel. 1991. The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon,
and Peter Miller, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
789
Ecology of Rule: Territorial Assemblages and Environmental Governance in Rural Mongolia
Goldstein, Melvyn and Cynthia Beall. 1994. The Changing Worlds of Mongolias Nomads. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Government of Mongolia (GOM). 2005. Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy. Ulaanbaatar:
GOM.
Harvey, David. 2003. The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Helmreich, Stefan. 2009. Alien Ocean: Anthropological Voyages in Microbial Seas. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Hinchliffe, Steve. 2007. Geographies of Nature: Societies, Environments, Ecologies. Los Angeles: Sage
Publications.
Humphrey, Caroline. 1978. Pastoral Nomadism in Mongolia: The Role of Herdsmens Cooperatives in the
National Economy. Development and Change 9:133-160.
____________. 1995. Chiefly and Shamanist Landscapes in Mongolia. In Eric Hirsch and Michael
OHanlon, eds. The Anthropology of Landscape, 135-162. London: Routledge.
Humphrey, Caroline and Urgunge Onon. 1996. Shamans and Elders: Experience, Knowledge, and Power
among the Daur Mongols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Humphrey, Caroline and Xurelbaatar. 2006. The Term Tr in Mongolian History. In David Sneath, ed.
Imperial Statecraft:Political Forms and Techniques of Governance in Inner Asia, 6th-20th Centuries,
263-292. Bellingham: Western Washington University Press.
Kohn, Eduardo. 2007. How Dogs Dream: Amazonian Natures and the Politics of Transspecies
Engagement. American Ethnologist 34(1):3-24.
Latour, Bruno. 2004. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences Back into Democracy. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
____________. 2008. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
McCarthy, James and Scott Prudham. 2007. Neoliberal Nature and the Nature of Neoliberalism.
Geoforum 35(3):275-283.
Mearns, Robin. 1996. Community, Collective Action, and Common Grazing: The Case of Post-Socialist
Mongolia. Journal of Development Studies 32:297-339.
____________. 2004a. Decentralization, Rural Livelihoods, and Pasture Land Management in Post-
Socialist Mongolia. European Journal of Development Research 16(1):133-162.
____________. 2004b. Pastoralism and Sustainable Livelihoods in Mongolia. Development and Change
35(1):105-106.
Moore, Donald. 2005. Suffering for Territory: Race, Place, and Power in Zimbabwe. Durham: Duke
University Press.
Murphy, Daniel. 2011. Going on Otor: Disaster, Mobility, and the Political Ecology of Mobility in Uguumur,
Mongolia. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Kentucky.
____________. In press. From Kin to Contract: Labor, Work, and the Production of Authority in Pastoral
Mongolia. Journal of Peasant Studies.
Murray-Li, Tania. 2007. The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of Politics.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Nadasdy, Paul. 2002. Property and Aboriginal Land Claims in the Canadian Subarctic: Some Theoretical
Considerations. American Anthropologist 104(1):247-261.
____________. 2007. The Gift in the Animal: The Ontology of Hunting and Human-Animal Sociality.
American Ethnologist 34(1):25-43.
Olson, Mancur. 1971. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
790
Daniel J. Murphy
Pedersen, Morton. 2011. Not Quite Shamans: Spirit Worlds and Political Lives in Northern Mongolia.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Polanyi, Karl. 2001. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Beacon
Press: Boston.
Putnam, Robert. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Raffles, Hugh. 2002. In Amazonia: A Natural History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rose, Nikolas and Peter Miller. 2008. Governing the Present: Administering Economic, Social and Personal
Life. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Rosenberg, Daniel. 1981. Leaders and Leadership in a Mongolia Collective: Two Case Studies. Mongolia
Studies 7:17-51.
Sharma, Aradhana. 2006. Crossbreeding Institutions, Breeding Struggle: Womens Empowerment,
Neoliberal Governmentality, and State (Re)formation in India. Cultural Anthropology 21(1):60-96.
____________. 2008. Logics of Empowerment: Development, Gender, and Governance in Neoliberal India.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Smith, Neil. 1992. Geography, Difference and the Politics of Scale. In Joe Doherty, Elspeth Graham, and
Mo Malek, eds. Postmodernism and the Social Sciences, 57-79. London: Macmillan.
Sneath, David. 2000. Changing Inner Mongolia: Pastoral Mongolian Society and the Chinese State.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
____________. 2001. Notions of Rights over Land and the History of Mongolian Pastoralism. Inner Asia
3(1):41-59.
____________. 2007. The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, and Misrepresenta;ons of
Nomadic Inner Asia. New York: Columbia University Press.
Strathern, Marilyn. 2004 [1991]. Partial Connections. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Sukhbaatar, X. 2001. Mongoliin Taxilgat Uul Usni Sangiin Sudar Orshvoi [Sacred Sites of Mongolia].
Ulaanbaatar: WWF Mongolia.
Thompson, E.P. 1966. The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Vintage Press.
Tsing, Anna, J. Peter Brosius, and Charles Zerner. 2005. Raising Questions about Communities and
Conservation. In J. Peter Brosius, Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing, and Charles Zerner, eds. Communities
and Conservation: Histories and Politics of Community-based Natural Resource Management, 1-36.
Walnut Creek, CA: Altamire Press.
Tumenbayar, N. 2000. Land Privatization Option for Mongolia. Paper delivered at the IASCP-Conference
on Common Property Resources, May 31-June 4, Bloomington, Indiana.
Upton, Caroline. 2011. Managing Mongolias Commons: Land Reforms, Social Contexts, and Institutional
Change. Society and Natural Resources 25(2):156-175.
Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo. 1998. Cosmological Deixis and Amerindian Perspectivism. The Journal of
the Royal Anthropological Institute 4(3):469-488.
Wang, Ming Ming. 2012. All Under Heaven (tianxia): Cosmological Perspectives and Political Ontologies
in Pre-Modern China HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 2(1):337-383.
West, Paige. 2006. Conservation is Our Government Now: The Politics of Ecology in Papua New Guinea.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Williams, Dee Mack. 2002. Beyond Great Walls: Environment, Identity, and Development on the Chinese
Grasslands of Inner Mongolia. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Zhang, Li. 2001. Migration and Privatization of Space and Power in Late Socialist China. American
Anthropologist 28(1):179-205.
Zimmerer, Karl and Thomas Bassett. 2003. Political Ecology: An Integrative Approach to Geography and
Environment-Development Studies. New York: The Guilford Press.
791
Ecology of Rule: Territorial Assemblages and Environmental Governance in Rural Mongolia
F o r e i g n L a n g u a g e Tr a n s l a t i o n s :
Ecology of Rule: Territorial Assemblages and Environmental Governance in Rural Mongolia
[Keywords: Neoliberalism, environmental governance, political ontologies, pastoralism, Mongolia]
:
[ : , , , ]
Ecologia da Ordem: Assemblagens Territoriais e Governana Ambiental na Monglia Rural
[Palavras-chave: Neoliberalismo, governana ambiental, ontologias polticas, pastoralismo, Monglia]
[]
:
[ : , , ,
, ]
:
] :
792