Paul Greenough and Anna Louenh aupt Tsing, editors

NATURE IN

TI{E GLOBAT SOUTH

Environmental Projects in South and Southeasr Asia

Duhe Uniuersitry Press Dwham (t London zooj

 Michael R. Dove

FOREST DISCOURSES

IN SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA

A Comparison with Global Discourses

The lTest has a special relation to the foresr, and deforestation.

-Giles Deleuze and F6Lx Guatrari

Discourses that articulace rhe place of the local in the global are nothing
new Past examples might articulate a southern land to a northern one in
monarchic terms (colonial India as "the jewel in the crown"), religious
terms {Jerusalem as "the Holy Land"), or mercantile rerms ("the mines
of Madrid").t Over che pasr several decades, in conjunction with rhe
popularizarion of holistic planetary images (Ingold r99 3; Sachs ry91, a
discourse of global articuladon has emerged rhar is based on a new
dimension, lhe envfonment and ics rransformation. The emergence of
this discourse has gone hand in hand with rhe rise ofenormous interest in
the role in rhe global ecosystem offoresc and forest loss, especially in the
Tropics. Efforts by global environmentalists to mobilize rnterest in ad-
dressing the causes of tropical deforestation have led to the developmenr
of concepcually and politically powerful metaphors. A characteristic ex-
ample is the reference to tropical forests as "the lungs of the world."2
Thrs reference can be read as a straightforward represenration of the
great elficiency of the tropical foresm in marntaining the earth's armo-
sphere through carbon dioxide absorption (Dixon et al. r994; Hough-
ton and Skole r99o). It also can be read as a pragmatic efforc to persuade
a global audience ro cake an interest in a regional matter by represenring
it in global terms. From alother perspecdve, however, the global lungs
image is clearly problemaric. For example, although cropical forests are
especially efficienr in absorbing carbon dioxide, all lorescs perform
thrs function; so why are the tropical forests alone being constructed as
the global lungsl The asymmerry inherent in this image is made more
apparent if we replace lazgs with some other body part, sach as muscle
(re{erring to rroprcal less developed countries as the muscles of rhe globe
while rhe northern developed nations are, e.g., the global brain). I will
suggest here that one way ro befter undersrand the use of such images
in global environmentai discourse is by looking more closely at local
discourses.
THE CRITIQUE OF GI-OBAL ENVIRONMENTAL DISCOURSE
The emergence of a global environmenral discourse almost immediately
g,enerarcd debate ahout whirt consrrtutes proper versus improper repre-
scntation of the global environment, in particular what role Vestern
cultural, economic, and political biases implicitly play in these represen-
tations. A starting point for a nurnber of critiques was the dr:bious valid-
ity of the premise of linear, cumulative environmental degradation in less
developed countries exemplified by McCannt (r997) critique of repre-
sentations of deforestation in Ethiopia by leadrng Vestern environmcn-
talists.r A number ofcritics have questioned the emphasis on forests and
forest loss in global discourses.a Deleuze and Guattari (r987) attribute
this emphasis !o the reliance of Vestern syrnbolic thought on the image
of the tree as opposed to the rhizome.r Perhaps more renable than this
essentializing, cultural explanation is the political explanation of Burrel
(r992, r9), who farnously characterrzed the emphasis on forests as "for-
est fundamentalism." Buttel argued that the overweening focus of global
environmentalists on tropical forests not only deflects attention from the
ecotypes in which mosr tropical peoples live (i.e., agricuhural, grassy, or
bushy landscapes), bur it also deflecm arrenrion from problemaric eco-
types and uses in the nontroprcal, industrialized countnes. The self-
privileging aspect of the emphasis by northern environmentalists on
southern forests has been noted by a number of critics in both thc North
and the Sourh. The latter are exemplified by Malaysia's Prime Minister
Mahathir, who gained prominence by deflccring northern attacks on his
country's rapid deforestation wrth qucstions about bistoric deforestation
in the critics'own countries as well as their role in perperuating a global
economlc order that, according to him, docs not support resource con-
servation in the less developed countries.6
Another major turn raken in rhe development of thrs global environ-
mental discourse has involved counterposing a local discourse ro it.
Building on earlier ethnographic studies of local envilonrnental rela-
tions, there have been a number of lecen! attempts to ask not what
forests mean to environmentdlisrs in the industrialized narions but whar
they mean to local peoples in the less developed countries that are rhe
focus of deforestation fears.T These attempts include, for example, Bird-
ro4 Michael R. Dove
David's (r99o) analysis of the metaphoric equation of forest with grand-
parent among the Nayaka of South lndia, Fairhead and Leach\ (r995,
63) analysis of "single forest" as a metaphor of political solidarity for the
Kissi of Gurnea, and the analyses of Rrval (1993) and Mosko (r987) of
the forest as a mirror for social structure among the Huaorani of the
Amazon and the Mbuti of Zaire, respectively There have also been some
self-conscious efforts to denaturalize the global environmentalist dis
course by identifying explicitly divergent local discourses. An example rs
Rrchards's (rggz) srudy, in which he contrasts thc environmentalisr
premrse that people protect the forest wich the premise of the Mende of
Sierra Leone that it is, rather, the forest thar Protects People.s More
pornred yet are studies that purport to reveal local dislike of forests and
cultural supporr for deforestation such as rhose by Bloch (1995) on the
Zafrmaniry of Madagascar and by Mccann (1997) on the Gcra and
Ankober of Ethiopia.e These studies are part of a wider body of work
that critiques the global environmentaLst vision of indigenous forest
communlties in less developed countries as "primitive conservationists"
(c.g., Diamond r986; Ellen r986; Redford r99r). Misuse of ethnogra-
phy in the environnentalists' representation of primirive conservarion
has been speci6cally critiqued by Brosius (r997a)
The reliance in these studies of local environmental discourses on our
own conceptual convennons (Dove r998a; Greenough and Tsing r994,
96) and the emphasis on countcrposing the local to the global has led,
perhaps inevrtablS to some eliding of the inrernal differentiation and
dynamics of the local. As a resulr, our understanding of such discourses
is srill in its infancy (Greenough and Tsing t994,9 5),We are ill prepared
as yet to either interpret local, colloquial envlronmental discouases or
assess their implications for our global discourses. For example, in con
temporary Pakistan people who live beyond the bounds of sociely are
commonly referred to as iungli log, "itnglelike people," and in Indonesia
the latex-producing, forest-bound smallholdings of indigenous peoples
are commonly and derisively referred to Dutan karel or "rtbber jungles "
Analysrs of these colloquial, local discourses suggests that they may be
relevant to our understanding of global fote$ discourses.
THIS STUDY
I will employ a historic, "genealogical" approach (Foucault r 97 3l to tlrc
study of these forest discourses l also will takc a comparative approach,
comparing local and global environmental discourses and comparing
Forest Discourses ro5
local discourses from rwo dillerent parts of Asia. Recent examples of
such comparadv€ analyses include Brosius r997a; Conklin and Graham
r99ji Turner r99 r; and - especially apposite here - O'Connor's (r995 )
analysis of agriculture and society in Southeast Asia and Zerner's
(r994a) analysis of local and global discourses of conservation in easlern
lndonesia.lo
My comparacive data are drawn from research in both lndonesia (fo
cusing on Borneo and Java) and Pakistan (focusing ol the baruni, or
"rainfed," rracts of the Punjab and rhe Northwest Fronlier Province).
Reynolds {r995,429,4j,2), in a recent review, nores lhat compa sons of
rhe lwo regions are surprisingly rare, although they share many aspects
of cultural history. The culrural-ecological congruence between rhe iwo
rcgions is wellexpressed by the fact thar rhe folk analogy rhar rhe rela-
rionship berween a krng and his people is hke the relarionship berween a
tiger and a foresc (rn char the former borh "live oIf" o[ rhe larrer) is
conrnlon ro both r€gions (Mo€rtono r98 r, 2z). On the other hand, Day's
(r994, r8r-84, r94) comparative analysis of environmeutal represenla-
rions in temple carvings in the regions shows thdt the appar€nt sim-
ilarities disguise equally profound differences,
Indeed, rhe cultural ecolo€iies of the rwo regions arc far from idenrical,
and in sorne respects they are even antithetical. To give bur one exanrple,
the current forest cover ofPakistan amounrs !o less !han 4 percent ofthe
country's land area, whereas in lndonesia this figure is 48 percent.rr The
difference between the figures is a function of both biophysical and social
factors: the historic vegetanon of mosr of Pakisran is rropical thorn
forest, whereas in most of western Indonesia it is tropical lowland ever-
green rarn forest (Champion, Seth, and Khanak r96t, r r r; Whitmore
I975). Whereas state formarions responsible for massive engineering of
the environmenr exrend back jusr over one millennium in lndonesia, rhey
exrend back four and a half millennia (to pre-Aryan, Indus civilizations)
in Pakistan (Allchrn and Allchrn r988). The greater cim€ deprh of inren-
sive land use in South Asia, in what is perhaps inherenrly a more fragrle
physical environment, has been associated with longer-term alteration of
this environment.
'Ihis study will focus on describing and comparing rwo particular
forest histories and discourses. one from Pakrstan and a second from
Indonesia. I will sugg€st that both discourses share ar emphasis on en-
vironmental change, linkage of this change to changes in social idenrity,
and conlest€d and subieclive interpretation of both chanpies. Compari-
son of rhe rwo Asran envrronmental discourses !o the global environ
ro6 Michael R- Dove
mental discourse suggesrs that the global drscourse sh0res mosr of the
clenrcnts of the local Asian ones, differrng only in a more self-conscious
asscrtion of obiectivity.
TWO ASIAN FOREST DISCOURSES
The origin of rhrs study lay in my observation of some curious linguisric
dara pertaining to foresrs in borh South and Southeasr Asia. ln the larrer
case, I observed that in different par$ of Iudonesia seemingly relared
pairs of terms were used to mean "house" and "village," on rhe one
hand, and "field" and "forest" on the other. ln Sourh Asra, I observed
!ha! lhe contemporary rerm for "wild foresC' has rools in an ancienr
lerm for "lamed savanna." Borh sets of dara opened up to me rhe pos-
sibility of an inquiry into local visions of the historical relarionship be
tween sociery and fores!s.
South Asia
The term lurgli, cited earlier, comes from the Anglo-lndiau rerm llzglc,
which is based on the Urdu term Jazgal (Yule and Burnell [r886] r9o3,
47o).12 lantal, in:'utn, originally derives from the Sanskrir term largdla
bur wirh an interesring change in meaning. Vhereas fangala origrnally
meant "arid, sparinBly grown with rrees and plants" (Monier-Williams
t899, 4171, jangal oday means "a wood, a foresr, jungle" (Urdz-
English Dictionary 1977, 265), The change in meanint can be summed
up by comparing the symbol of the jangala, lhe Indian anrelope (An ti-
lope ceruicapra),with the symbol of theyazgal, rhe dacoit or outlaw. The
abili.y of.he antelope ro live on the land was rhe ancienr definition of
jangala, ol lantJ thatwas suitable for Aryan settlemenr and rhe propaga-
tion of Brahmanic culture and religion (Zimmermann 1987, 6r),
whereas the ability of dacoits to escape caprule tn rhe riverine foresrs of
conlemporary Pakistan is a symbol of the limrmtions and boundaries of
contemporary socrely.rl
As characterized in the Vedic texts produced by rhe ancienc Aryan
invadcls of the subcontinent (e.g., the Rgveda IGriflith r973], che Arrha
sasrrl lKangl€ (1969) 19881, and the Laws of Manu [Buhler (r886)
r9641), lhe jangala was open bush or savanna (Zimmermann r987). lt
was arid country but healthy for humans and also crops, provided that
river or well warer was available. It was concenrrared rn lhe west, in the
l'orest Discourses ro7
central plains of the Indus Vailey, in rhat porrion of the subcontinent Ceography of Ancient lndia
today called the Panyab rn borh Pakistan and Indra. Above all, it was
ntually "pure." The jangala was not created by natural forces alone, ctvtL zAIl0N
however. In rhe absence of human rntervention, the climate of this part
NATURE ANO CULTURE
of rhe subcontinent tends to produce a low thorn forest, not an open
savanna (Champion, Seth, and Khattak r965, rrr). The savanna repre-
sented what happened to the thorn forest when it was modrfied by the
livestock and fire of the pasroral Aryan peoples (see Allchin r963, r7o-
7r; and Zimmermann r987, r8, 44). In other words) lhe jangala repr€- Cultural Geography of Conternporaly Pakistan
senred what happened when the thorn forest was partially cleared and
then prevented from fully reconstituring itself. The jangala rs a "depan-
CULTURE/CIVILIZA'IION
perate" vegetative cover, therefore, maintained through periodic disrur-
bance by people and animals (Champion, Seth, and Khartak r965, 27- 0anEat)

t-8, jal3-4o\ Spate and Learmonth ry76,71-74; !?hyte r968, r57,

t73, 174, t88). The role of anthropogenic 6re in thrs process rs reflected
in Vedic belrefs about Ere: n the Rgueda, lor example, hymns associate
the fire god Agni with cattLe and fodder grasses in a context of renewal Figure r. Ancienr /drgr la vs. Contemporary Jangal
lGritfrth ry73, 45, 54r, 639). This analysis o{ the anthropogenic charac-
reristics of iaDgala is supported by ancrent tenurial codes, which granted Central polities as well as local communities, have been involved rn rhe
rights based on clearing grasses but revoked them if the clearing was nor social consftuction of borh jangala and jangal, as can be seen rn ancient
repeated within a given amount of nme (Ghoshal lr9z9l 1973, ro8; state prescriptrons regarding where the Aryans should Lve. Thus, the
Zimmermann r987, r4). Yedic Laws of Manu states "Let him [the krng] take up residence in a
Since Vedrc times, the jangala has been succeeded by iangal. The vege jangala place" (Zimmermann ry87,39).-fhe implication that the jan-
tative and geographic referents of the latter term differ considerably gala was a natural environment waiting for the Aryans to come along
from the former: rt typically refers not to open savanna but to a bloc of and settle ir, as opposed to an anchropogenic environment that they had
closed foresr, and it typically is found not in a centtal buc a margrnal ro create, rcflects a historic conflation of the caregories of nature and
location such as in hills or seasonal flood plains. A major shift in sym- culture. The role ofthe contemporary sta!e rn resource management, on
bolic referents also took place berween jangala and jangal: the latter the other hand, contributes to not a narrowng but a widening of the
is typrcally wild, as was the former, but it also is beyond civrlization, distinction berween nature and culture. For example, the Pakistan Forest
whereas the formerwas not. Whereas pastures and frelds once lay wirhin Service rraditionally considered all small farmers to be rnveterate tree
the jangala, they do not Iie wthin today's jangal. Jangala was the place haters who posed a constanr threa! lo srate forests and were ncapable of
where the Aryan felt most "at home"; jangal is the place where contem- on-farm tree cultivarion (Dove r99zb). This reflected the governmencs
porary rural people "feel fear." !?hereas jangala encompassed Aryan view ofa chasm between forests and people, between nature and culture.
civilization, jangal is excluded fronr contemporary sociery As a result,
the wild and rhe domestrcared, nature and culture, are much farther
aparr on the conremporary landscape than they were on the ancient one.
Whereas rhe principal divide on the contemporary landscape is between
nature and culture, the principal divide on the ancienl landscape lay
between civilizaoon and barbarism-with the former subsuming &oll:
nature and culure. The differences between the rwo cultural geographles
are sr.rmmarized ir, Figure r.

ro8 Michael R. Dove Forest Discourses ro9

 Sol,ttheast Asld
Linguistic dara from my Southeast Asian prolect reflect similar changes
m the physical and conceptual landscape, but in this case whar is rn-
volved is the historic conflacion ofthe meaning of multiple terms.
Lingnstic Euidence ln a prescienr but now overlooked essay written
forty years ago, Harley H. Bartlett (r962, 274) observed that rhere is an
interesling pattern of variation in the meafling of che common Malayo-
Polyr.estar' term uma. He states that in some societies it means "agncul-
tural field" (which he thinks was its original meaning), whereas in others
ir means "house" or "field and house."1a This same pattern can be seen
in contemporary Indonesia and Malaysia. For example, runah merns
"house" in lndonesian and Malay, ar'd humah, omah, and umah simi
larly mean "house, home" in Javanese (Echols and Shadily r992, 468;
Hotne r974, 4ar,68S; Prawiroatmodjo Ir957] r98 r, r: 6jl; ri ilkinson
1959, zt 987-88), but in Malay uma/huma means "dry field," and in
lhe lbanic dialecrs of BoEieo utuai meaos "(swidden) field" (Richards
r98r, 4ro-rr; \Uilkinson 1959, r:4t4, z:t263). An analogous series
involves the term, Aazrpzflg. In common IDd onesian, Ja va nese, and Ma-
lay, kampunglkampong means "village" or "(urban) quarter" (Echols
and Shadrly r963, r63; Horne r974,254; Wilkinson r959, r:5 o3 ), buc in
Ibanic dialects Aarnporg means "primary forest" (Richards ry84 47)
and in Srmpang Dayak kamponghas the intermediate meaning of "{or-
mer village site/fruit grove."rs
Of rnost interesr is the lact tha( thsre is cruss LurtiAE.ouariation
between lhe rwo afore-mendoned parterns:
Indonesian/Malay Ibanic Languages
tumah/hampung
"house/village" "field/foresi'
The terms for house and village rend to occur logether, as do lhe lerms
for 6eld and forest. Thus, the parred tetms rumahlhdmpung mean
"house/village" rn Indonesian/Malan whereas the paired rerms
umai/ kampang mean "lield/forest" in Iban. The one pair appears ro map
onEo lhe orher.l6 Whereas the various uses of kampung appear to be
cognate, rumah and un ai in fact are not. In Proto-Ausrronesian, razralr
(house) and umai/huma (6eld) acrually have different linguistic ety-
rro MichaelR. Dove
moloSres (ltlusr r9ij4, 2ao-zr) rl5; lJlusr r9E7; tJempwoltt r9l7,l:6r,
7o).'7 The uses cited above cherefore represent conflared "folk ery-
mologies." Fox (r 973, 3 5o-5 r ), following Turner (r967, 286), says rhar
such "ficcitious etymology" is an rmportant means o f integraring sysiems
ofclassification.
The classiiicarory sysrem involved here-wirh its association between
"house" and "village" on the one hand and "lield" and "foresC'on rhe
other-addresses the most basic relalions of social producrion and re_
production. The elements in each of the terminological piLrs, rumahl
kampung \hoosel vrllage) and umai / kanpuzg (lield/forest), are relared
through dialectical processes of ecological rransformalion. Frelds are cut
out of, bur uLtimacely return ro, the forest in upland syscems of swidden
agriculture.'3 ln a similar fashion, households are created by but ul
rimarely dissolve into, rhe vrllage in the lowland peasanr societies of
lndonesia and Malaysia. In short, both the household and the swidden
6eld hcve a srmilar, ephemera I cha ra cter within a wider cycle ofcreetron
and desrruction. [n lndo-Malay cuhural-ecological history, rhus, rhe re-
lationship becween rhe household and the village is like the relationship
oI the iield to the foresc:
lield : forest :: household, village
This analogy -6eld is ro forest as household is to village maps onco
the two mosr wrdespread, historic modes of economic production and
social reproduction in Southeasr Asia, forest fallow shifting cultivation,
in which fields are termed swiddens, and permanent ctlnvarion, typi-
cally irrigared agnculcure, in which the 6elds are called pond 6elds.1'The
fundamental difference berween these two modes of production is a
reversal in taluation of rhe facrors ofproduction. The swidden sysrem is
characcerized by scarce labor and abundant land, and so returns co che
former are maximzed, whereas the pond 6eld system is characterized by
abundanr labor and scarce land, and so rerurns ro rhe latter are nraxi
mrzed (Dove r985). Thus, the pond lield sysrem exploits labor and the
swrdden syscem exploits forested land.'?o This fundamencal difference in
the producrive base of society is reflected in che folk saying, cited earlier,
!ha! "!he relarion of a king to his people rs Lke the relation of a riger ro a
forest." Pond field societies in facc are based more on lhe exploiraoon of
human capital, "the people," whereas swidden societies are based more
on the exploiratioo of natural capital, "rhe tbresr." This difference be
tween the rwo sulrcnrres ofproducrion alrd reproduction has come to be
Forest Drscourses rrr
reflected in Indo-Malay language and thought in rhe "fictitrous etymo-
logical" relationship between feldlfotest on the one hand, and house/
t,illage on rhe othet,
Culturdl and Political Valorizdtion The difference bewc€n the srvidden
and pond field systems in scarce factors of production, and in whcther
returns to land or labor are maximized. is associared with a series of
differences in culturalvalues. Labor and people are more highly valued
in swidden societies, whereas land is more highly valued in pond field
socieries. Simrlarly, rhc value placcd in pond 6eld societies on getting the
maximum yield out of each square meter of land rs not shared by swid-
den socienes; nor do the pond 6eld societies valu€ the svr'idden farmer'.s
ability to satisfy basic su bsistence requiremenrs wirh a limited amount of
labor, thus freeing labor for tasks such as gathering of forest products or
production o{ expoft commodities.
The opposing culruralvaluations ofswrdden versus pond fie1d systems
play out within a wider framework ofhistorical, political, and geographic
relations. Swidden versus pond field cultivation is a fundamental point of
distinction in the history as well as the geography of Southeast Asia.
Swidden agriculture can be practiced, and oncc was practiced, allover the
Southeast Asian landscape. Howcver, sra te developmenr, which was con-
centrated in rhe lowlands and promoted the developmenr of pond fields
for ease ofextraction ond control isee Scott r998, z8z, on the "fugitive"
swrdclcn fields and peoples of rhe uplands), over rrme relegatcd swidden
agriculture to the margins of governance, meaning the hills and moun-
tains. Flight beyond the reach of the srate, one of the mos! rmportant
historic mechanisms of peasanr resistance to state oppression, also con-
tributed to this pattern (Dovc r 985 ). By the twentieth cenlury, through-
out Southeast Asia pond 6elds and swiddens had become idenrified in
hegemonic national discourses with, respectively, lowlands versus up-
lands, contemporary vcrsus archarc rechnologies, and ccntral civ iliza tion
versus p€ripheral barbarism (Burling r965; Dove r985). This panern of
valorizadon is refl€cted in the development within the region of culrural
myths of lowland societies sertling rhe uplands, whereas the reverse was
often the case (Reid 1997). The fact that the exractive economv that
supported the state was generally more suited to pond field than swidden
culrivation, and rhar swrdden cultiva!ion mostly came to characterize
areas ar thc limirs oi, if not beyond, state conrrol, exerred a powerful
influence on the topographical norms ofthe stare. Southeast Asian shtcs
have characteristically demonstrated a strong bias in favor of pond lields
arrd thcir open lowland landscape, on the one hand, and againsr swiddens
r rz Michael R. Dove
and their upland forested landscape on the other (Dove r98 5).rrThis bias
is nor without its complexities, however.
During rhe era of precolonial kingdoms of Java, for example, srate
hosnhty toward forest-based society and economy was tempered by rec,
ognition of the important role that the foresr wrlderness played in op-
position to rhe crvilized central state, Thrs recognition can be seen rn the
6ghts staged between trgers and buffaloes-the symbols of the forest and
the royal kingdom, respectively-ar coronarions in rhe Javanese cortrrs
(Wessing r 99 z).':2 The facr rhat the 6ghts were often "rigged" so that rhe
tiger would lose is important, but the fac! rhar the tiger was allowed to
fight at all is also signrEcanc, This linkage to the foresr is also reflecred in
thc use of the "tiger in the foresC'as a metaphor for the proper relarion
ship between a king and his people. The historicalJavanese states saw
the forest as a distinct realm, therefoie, but one that opcrated on prin-
ciples somewhar similar to their own and one whose existence was rm-
portant ro their own (see Burlmg r96j, 6; Leach r95o).,r This valoriza-
non of a landscape containing forested as well as non-forested areas was
reproduced on a smaller scale in the idealization of an agricultural sys-
tem rhat included both intensive (pond 6elds) and exrensive (swid-
dens).'za Christie writes (r99r, 3z)that "The oldest rerm ro be applied to
.favanese settlements rn thc legal literature is u)aflra. . . . This terrirory
appears to have been large, based perhaps upon the terrirorral require
menrs of mixed agricultural systems incfi.rding swiddens. The formulas
in rhe charters relatirg to wanua land include such phrases as, 'the for-
ests, swrdden fields, dnd rivers, in rhe valleys aod on the hills,''their
valleys and mountains . . , rheir sarza} [pond fieldsl and orchards,' 'their
sduah, dty rice 6elds, marshes and orchards,'and olhers in the same
vein." On irn even smaller scale, rt is Lkely rhar both individualJavancse
communities and many of their constituent households historically, as
well as today, based their agriculrural strategies on rhe simulraneous
exploitatron of a "portfolio" of differenr resource hases that formerly
irrcluded lowland pond 6clds and upland swiddens.
The linkage of the two ecotypes continu€d thror.rghout colonial and
postcolonial rule in lndonesia, but its rdeological supporr did not. Per-
haps the most famous example of the linkage during the Durch era was
rhe system of tolracco cultivation rn Deli, Sumatra.2s The tobacco grow-
ers utilized the dynamics of the local swidden cycle to provide them wirh
planring sites cleared of forcsr, and after their tobacco had exhausted the
sorl they relied on the dynamics of the swidden forest fallow to reforcst
their sites (Geertz r963, r66-r r; P€lzer r 9s7). By ins,nuating rheir crop
lnto the local swidden cycle, therefore, thcy wrested an economic and
Fore st D iscou rses rr3
ecological "subsidy" from this cycle. A number of other important ex-
port crops were similarly subsrdrzed by swidden agriculture. Notwirh_
standrng rhrs facr, the colonial Dutch cusromarily referred ro swrdden
agriculture as rool6olru, "exhauscrve or robber agnculture" (Jansonius
r95o, rr4j). The cerm robber re ectedtheDutch beliefthat rhis sysrem
of agr rculru re flou rished only at the cost of"robbing" the environmenr of
an above average amount of resources. By implication, the pond field-
based cultivation of rice or export crops that the Durch favored did nor
involve any robbery o{ rhrs sort. The Dutch did nor accept, rherefore, che
fact thar swidden cultivetion based on scarce labor and abundant land
was just as legitimare a system of production as pond field cultivatron,
based on scarce land and abundanr labor. The Dutch denied, thac is, the
swidden and pond field rrade-off between land and labor. By using rhe
terntrobber ro characcerize swidden agriculture, the Dutch were in effect
saying that if swiddens performed as well as pond fields it was only
chrorlgh "cheating." The fact thar che Durch themselves relied on rhrs
cheatilg in systems such as che culcivation of Deli tobacco did not dis_
suade them from wha! was thus a heavily ironic characterizarton.
This deprecation of a resource use system by a society that was all the
while proliting from it continued inro rhe postcolonial era. The produc
lion of many of Indonesia's most imporlanr export commodrty crops
concinues to be linked co swidden agriculture: these crops are cultivated
by smallholders to meetmarketneeds while swrddencrops are culrivated
to meet subsrsrence needs. Policymakers have resolutely rgnored this
linkage, however, and lhey have continued the rradrtion of srate vrh6ca_
rron ofswrdden aglculcure. Indeed, unril rhe r99os, swidden agriculture
was commonly not even acknowledged in national governmen! circles as
a sysrem of agriculure, and often swidden forest fallows are scill per-
ceived as "abandoned" land ifnor, rndeed, as "narural" forest.
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN THE TWO
ASIAN DISCOURSES
The agro-ecological typologies that lie at the hearr of the Sourh and
Southeasr Asran discourses discussed here are idealized cultural con-
s[ruc!s, bur chey also have great local value and thus imporrance. The
facr thar rhe rypological boundaries are frequently crossed or otherwis€
violated is less significantthan rhe fact lhat the cultural constructs invesr
all such crossings with specral meaning. The inrerpretive power of these
constructs is such thar oucside observers have also employed them to
rr4 Mrchael R. Dove
make sense of these regions: wirness the prominence of rhe swrdden-
pond field dichotomy in the classic analyses of mainland and insular
Southeast Asia by Burling (r965) and Geertz (r963 ), respectively.
Socnl and Envronmental Cbange
I
l
One of the mosr obvious similaricies between the South and Southeast
Asian discourses is char rhey both concern change, specifically change in
nature-culture relations. In both regions, a major historic ransforma-
tion occurred rn the lerms of negotiarion between nature and culture: in
the South Asian case, the civilizarion-encompassing jangala became rhe
civilization-excluding jangal; and in the Southeast Asian case che dialec-
tic berween field and foresr was replaced (in some places) by a dialectic
between household and vrllage. The local representations of these uans-
formations remind us tha! foresc discourses-and the human environ-
ment relations that produce them-did nor begin witir contemporary,
northern environmentalism, nor with rhe colonial era. Greenough and
Tsing (1994,98) and Rangan (1995), among others, have poinred out
that rhe "standard environmental narrative" developed in recent years
by inrellecuals and acivisrs in South Asia, which posits the colonial era
disturbance ofa previously unchanging and undegraded environment, is
noc rn keeping wrth the hiscorical facts. lc is cefiainly nor in keeping with
the hrstorlcal discourse ofjungle described here.
The two regional discourses link changes in environment with changes
in socrety, including changes rn the way society lhinks about the environ-
'ment. Greenough and Tsing (1994, 95) write that "Knowledge of the
environmenr. . . is socrally consrructed in elvironmenta I practices. "26 As
practices change, so too does both nature and its conceptualizarion
change. ln borh regrons, indeed, rhe conception of narure has changed as
relations between sociery and rhe environment have changed (see -Dove
r998a; and Kirch 1994). In South Asia, cultural views of the jungle
changed from posiove ro negative as the predominance of jungle in the
landscape waned, and in Southeast Asia cultural valorization of a field
foresr dialectic shifted to a household-village dialectic as the forest cover
(and chus thc forest-field cycle) srmilarly waned. The conceprion of na
turc in these two cases has rhus "coevolved" wirh nature (Dove r99za).
This coevolution affected mor€ than tust society's concept of the en-
vironment, however, for both regiona I d iscourses treatth€ nature-culcure
dialectic as a contesr wlth winners and losers was j[deed historically
-as
the case. Thus, the ancient Aryan populanons of the subcontinent pushed
the non-Aryans out of the jangala regions into the werter, less healrht
Foresr Discourses rr t
heavrly forested regions (of rhe Ganges Plarr,), the dkupa lzi,mmetfi\ann
I the HTr, rhat the best way to respond to deforestation is by planting
1987). In cont€mporary Pakiscan, soclety pushes those wbo do not be_
longto rt, such as dacoits, into the jangal, the cont€mPorary equiva lent of
rhe anupa. Similarly, the enemies of the histortc Javanese kingdoms fled
into the forests (Dove 1985), whereas in contemPoraly lndonesia the
federal government forcibly moves tribal peoples out of forests (in a
program called Reserelmen Penduduk, "Population ResetdemenC') to
render them more susceptible to state control and the forests more atail-
able for exploitation by state elites. ln the South and Southeast Asian
discourses, therefore,environmentaltransformation isnotsociologically
neutral; it is alt abour power and idenlity and, inevitably, changes in
power and idenlry27Indeed, ir rs precisely rhe possibility ofsuch change
that gives environmental transformation the great cultural significance
that it holds in the two discourses.
Contest afld Agenql
The qnestion of who or whac is the agenr of environmental trsnsforma-
rions is salent and contested in the two discourses 23 This contest rs
expressed, in part, in differing p€rceplions of the mechanisrns of de-
forestarron and reforestation. An example can be drawn from my Paki
stan project, which involved an effort by the Forest Department of the
Northwesr Frontier Province to ience and reforest a barren hillside
(Dove r99za). This effort was based on rhe planting of seedlings of an
indigenous tree, Acacidrfiodesta. One of lhe biggest constrainrs that the
seedlings facedwas compe!ition from spontaneously occurring "weeds"'
Eo the suppression ofwhich the Forest Department was devotlng consid
erable resources. Researchers from my own projecr discovered, however,
that many of the so-called weeds were also Acacia modesta, which pro
liferated naturally on the hillside as soon as it was fenced and browsing
by local goat herds ceased. Thus, the Forest Service was simulhneously
planting and uprootlng the same species of rree. The two actions were
differentiated solely by the question of agency: the pl^lted Acacia rc-
quired the agency of rhe For:estServrce and were thus suPporled, where$
the narurally occt.::jng Acacid did not require its agency and so were
combated.2e
A second example, from Indonesia, involves the hutan tanafian tndus
tree plantation," whrch enjoyed great of6cial
t/, (HTI) or "indrstrial
support during the r99os as a resPonse to deforeslatton (and has also
been supported by an extensive public relations carnpaign on "Green
Indonesia" financed by lhe maior Ioggrng companies) The basrc logic of
rr6 MichaelR. Dove
rrees, is based on two dispr:ted premises. The lirst is that the forest it
self lacks "agency," that rhe felled lrees must be replaced using human
agency rf the foresr is to be restored. Ecologists take issue wirh thrs
premise, arguing thet it overlooks che fact that all of the natural envi-
ronmental forces rn Indonesra are predrsposed toward generating trec
growrh, thar it is only human agency that retards this, and thus rhat it is
human factors that must be addressed to reterse deforestacion. The sec-
ond disputed premrse of the HTr is that it is a sociologically neurral,
purely technological intervention. ln facr) ir is much more chan that: the
act of planung rrself has profound implications for proprietary rights
ro the foresr, decisively tipping the balance berween indigenous rights
holders and the external elites that control the timber companies. For
thrs reason, many of the the rribal people of Kalimantan say that they
fear the srr far more tha;r rhe hak pengusahadn huttln lHpH), ot "forcst
concession," which concentrares on lhe extraction of the natural dmber
and then departs.r0 lndeed, rhe urI has been used by elrtes in Kalimantan
as a vehicle ior appropriating indigenous resource rights.
A third and 6nal example, also from Indonesia, involves the common
sw ord grass Imp etata cylindtica lDove r98 6) . lmp eratd is dispanged by
stare scientists and policymakers and has long been the subyecr of erad-
icarion and afforestation programs. These programs are premised on the
belief that llnperat.t is a terminal, vegetative edaphic climax rhat can
only be altered by means of stare agency. Research on rhe role of Irzper-
ata in local human ecologies offers a different perspective on rhe grass,
however, suggesting that ir ryprcally constitutes a rather tenuous fire
climax species that is maintained (i.e,, is blocked from spontaneous suc-
cession roward afforestarion) by means of periodic, inrentional burning
by local communities, which value it for fodder and ground cover. From
the local perspective, rhetefore, Imperata is the product of a 6ne balance
berween the agency of namre and the agency of the local community.
The state denies these latter claims for agency, however, thereby increas-
ing the concepcual space for rts own managerial and proprietary author-
ity while decreasing that of rhe local community.3r
These three examples all reflect similar cont€sts over the issue of
agency in environmental transformations. CommunityJetel discourses
in South and Southeast Asia rend to locate agency either in nature or in
rhe dialectical relarionship between nature and culture. In contrast,
narional-level discourses tend to locare this agency in rhe srare. The two
points ofview can be distinguished by asking whether a temporarycessa-
tion ofhuman intervention in the environment willlead to restoration or
Forest Discourses r rz
further degradation of thar environmenr, In both Sourh and Sourheasr
Asia, a premise of state discourses is that not forebearance but active
intervencion by rhe stare is a prerequisire for restoralion (e,g., reforesra-
lron) under such circumsrances.
Exceptions !o this state denial oI local social and natural agency are
revedling. An exampl€ is lndia's Joint Forest Management program
(Malhocra r993; Poffenberger r994), which srands out as one of;ust a
handful of instances, out of hundreds of artempts over che past half
cencury rn Sourh and Southeast Asia aloue, in which a reforeslation
program has achieved any meaningful measure of success.32 The key to
rhe program is a written agreement betwe€n a local community and the
governmenr's Fores! Deparrment in v/hich it is agreed that if the commu-
nity helps to protect a proximate tract offorestthe department will share
with it the resources and lncome from rhat foresr. Reviews of rhis pro-
gram demonscraEe rhac when such agreemenB are effectively imple-
mented forests that had been degraded ro the point of barrefl ground can
often begin to return to a healthy state remarkably quickly and o/rez
without any fwther inp t by either foresters or uill4gels. Tha! is, cessa
tion ofthe misuse that is brought about by conlhcrs becween the commu-
ry and the Fores! Deparlment over what uses are to be permirted itself
suffices to resrore the resource. The key ro chis resroration is prior rdenti-
fication of agency, both the agency responsible for the degradation of the
forest (community-state conflict) and the agency responsible for irs res-
toration (unfettered natural dynamics). The polentially grear rewards of
consensus on agency show howpowerful are lh€ insticutional forces that
pr€vent these rewards from being realized. The mosr imporrant of lhese
forces may be rhe fact rhat (in both regions) the self-conception of the
stare depends in part on envfonmental inrervention.]3
The conres! over agency is re{lect€d in the two terms with which this
sudy began: jungli log and jungle rubbet. Vhereas rhe latter rerm dif-
ferentiates trees, the former differentiates people; whereas use of ch€
larter srgnifies rhe importaflce to society of distinguishing between com-
modities that are more wild as opposed !o cultured, use of the former
signifies the importance of drstingurshing between people who are mor€
wrld versus cukured. In facr, there are few if any true "foresr peoples" in
the Sourh Asian regions where frngli log is used, and there is little true
jungle rubber coming to market anymore in Southeasc Asia: che small
holder rubber ro whrch thrs term is applied is economically more rmpor-
cant and almost as cultured as the product of the parastaral estates with
which it competes (Dove r99jb). The rerminology used in boch cases is
rhus ironic, which reflects lts inherently politrcal character.3a The ironic
r r8 MichaelR. Dove
invocation of nature supporrs the stare projecr o{ allocating agency to
irself in borh regions while denying it to local comrnunities.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
TlTis analysis of rwo Sourh and Sourheast Asian foresr discourses places
rhe global discourse ofdeforesration in an interesting perspecove. Coun
rerintlriovelyr perhaps, a comparrson between the locai and global dis-
courses reveals more similarioes than dissimilarilies. Firs!, and most
obviously, both the local and rhe global discourses rnvoke powerfulim
ages ofchange. The Sourh and SourheastAsian discourses discussed here
emphasize lhe lransformation of for€st€d and unclvrlzed landscapes
inco deforested and civrlized ones, and the global discourse emphasizes
the rransformation of prisrine natural landscapes inro degraded cultural
ones,
Further, both the local and global discourses are concerned wirh
change in noc just the envrronmenr but society iLrcluding the way in
-
which sociecy conceives of the environmenr. The global perception oI
rropical forests as lhe "lungs of lhe earth" is associated with perceived
global deforesration jusc as much as rhe perception of the fores! as a
refuge of barbarism is associated with perceptions of dre recediDg forest
fronrier in Asia. In both cases too, perceived changes in the environ-
menr-past, presenr, and threarened-are associated with perceived
changes in idenrity. Just as the local oppositions of;ungle and civihzation
or swrdden and pond 6eld enrail a fundamental distinction berw€en self
and other, so, too, does rhe global oppositiofi of temperate and foprcal
zones (Tsing r993, x).
Because o( the perceived impacr of such change on sociecy as well as
environmen!, irs rnrerprerarion is politically charged. This is reflecred in
the elision, in both rhe local and global discourses, of etrvironmenlal
history. Just as the cultural-ecological origrns of contemporary sociery
are obfuscated in the South and Southeast Asian discourses, so, too, in
the global discourse of fiopical deforesrarion is there an absence of refer-
ences to, for example, the cycles of deforestation-afforestarion thar lhe
rndusrrialized courtries o[ce experienced themselves (Mathers r99z;
Panayocou r994).r5 Particularly obscured in both cases is the issue of
agency, referring co control over posirrve change and responsibiliry for
negative change. The aRency ofafforestation is obfuscated and contested
in rhe Asral and global drscourses, lhe laller being exempliEed by the
norlhern environm€nralis!s' charge that Malaysian elices are destroying
Forest Discourses r r9
the country's forests and the Malaysian governrhenr\ countercharge rhat
the real culprit is the northern-domrnated global economic ord€r
(Thompson r993).
Subjective interpretation of environmental change is a cenrral featur€
of the global as well as the local discourses. Indeed, it could be said that
this is what both discourses are all about. The global discourse of de-
forestation is no less political, rhetorical, or idealized than rhe Asian
forest discourses. The global discourse, based on a brnary opposirion of
deforestation and af(orestation, is just as essentialized as che Asian dis-
courscs, which are based on oppositions of swidden and pond 6eld or
yungle and civilization. Nor is the global discourse any more reflexive in
this regard than the local discotrrsesr both represent themselves as ob-
iectivc, norwithstanding their subiecrivity. The global discourse is, if
anything, more guilty in this regard due to its sometimes unwarranted
privileging of scientific rhetoric and its assumprion of a self-conscious
premrse of objectivrty.
Given these structu ra I sirni la rities between local and global discourses,
we would expect to 6nd intellectual cross-linkages between them, and
we do. For a number of years now scholars have been documenting the
intellectual and political relations between local and global discourses
(Dove et aJ. zoo3; Tsing 1993, r 3 ). Examples include srudies of the way
in which valorization of indigencity at the global level has reversed rrs
value in local discourses (Jackson r995; Zerner r 994a) as well as studies
ofthe way in whrch accoun!s often essentialized and romanticized of
- -
traditional community-level resource use have empowered national- and
international-level discourses (Brosius r997a; Mclntosh r994; Rangan
199z).16 Further comparisons of local and global environmental dis-
courses and €xaminations of the relarioDs between them should be a
fruitful area of study,
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Research in Indonesia was inrtrally carried our be(ween 1974 and 1975 with
support from rhe National kience Foundation (Grant no. cs-4260j )and wirh
sponsorship from the Indonesian Academy of Science (Ltpr ). Addirional data
were gathered during six years of subsequent work in Indonesia berween r 979
and r98t, with support from the Rockefeller and Ford Foundarions and the
EasFvest Cenrer and with sponsorship by Gadjah Mada Universiry. A recenr
series of field rrips to Indonesia, begrnning in r992, was supported by the Ford
Foundation, the United Natrons Development Program, and the John D. and
CatherjneT. MacArihur Foundation, with sponsorship by PadjadjaranUniver-
rzo Michael R. Dove
sity and the Indonesian Central Planning Minisrry (B^ppENAs). Research in
Pakistan was carried our berween r98j and r989, wirh supporr from th€ For-
esry Planning and Development Prolect, iointly fr:nded by the governmenr of
Pakistan and the U.S. Agency for lnternational Developmenr, under the direc,
tion of the inspecror general of foresrs and under contract ro the Wrnrock
lnternationallnstirute for Agriculrural Development. The author is grareful to
CarolCarpenrer,JamesJ. Fox, Paul Greenough,andAnna Tsingforcomrnenrs
on earlier drafts. The author alone is responsible for the analysis presented here.
NOIES
r I follow Greenough and Tsing (1994,9J) in dehning discorse as "both
ways of speaking and clusters of non-verbal pradices, as rhese ctear€ and
mainrain distinctions and identiries."
2 I am indebt€d to Carol Carpenter for drawing my attention ro this poinr.
In a rclated vein, the well-being ol rropical forest inhabitants has been
l*ened to rhe well-being of the "mineCs canary" (Durning r992, 48-49).
3 Cf. thc contributions by Blaikie (r985), Gurhman (1997),Ives and Mes
serli (r989), Metz (r989), and Thompson, Warburron, and Harley (r 985)
ro a scminaldebate about assumprions ofdeforestarion and erosion in rhe
Himalaya.
4 Scholars ofSourheast Asia, {o. example, have noted how the emphasis on
deforestation marginalizes considerarions of human needs (e.g., Bryanr,
Rigg, and Stott r993, rori Falkus r99o, 7t-76)-
t See Bouquer's (r99j) revrew of historical Western uses of the tree as an
organizing symbol and th€ collectjon of anrhropological analyses of tree
symbolism edited by Rival (r998).
6 See Dove r998b for an analysis of Mahathir's famous response to an
English schoolboy's criticism of Malaysian deforesration-
7 Less common have been attempts ro conrresc the views oflocaland extra-
local scholars. See dre comparrson by Grove, Damodaran, and Sangwan
(r998b, rr) of the focus of U.S. researchers on land use change in South
Asia with the focus on resistance and discourse o f Sou th Asian scholars.
I For other critiques ofthe environmentalisr premise of'saving," see Hara,
way ry92;Ingold r993; and Sachs r994.
See Dove r98j on the historic culrural valorizarion of clearing versus
9
preserving foresc in Java.
ro Whar are rermed global and local discourses in this essay ro some extent
represent discourses from North America and Europe, on rhe one hand,
and discourses from South and Soucheasr Asia on rhe other.
rr Recent data on forest cover in Pakrstan and Indonesia are taken from,
respectively, (htrp//www.wcmc.org.uk/forest/dara/cdromz/cs€rebs.htm#
Tabler ) and (http//www.wcrnc.org.uk/forest/dara/cdromz/insra bs.hrm#
Tabler).
rz This secnons draws on Eove r992a.
r3 S€e Cronon ry91, zt3-ta, for a similar analysis of the relationship be-
Foresr Discourses rzr
 rween rhe bison and Nacive American sociery See Ludden ry96 fot Bryanr r995 on colonial Burma and Sivaramakrishnrn r998 on contem-
ana!ysis ofchenginB agrarian opposirions in Tamrl Sociery. ^n porary lndia.
r4 See Adimihardja's (r992) observarion among the Kasepuhan ofWesr Java
lo Insriture of Dayakology Research and Development, Pontialak, lndo-
that rhey "inrerprer the wordhu,na \freld) as imab \home)." nesia, personal cornmunication-
15 KrLsrianus Arok, persolal communicarion. Similarly rhe retm dusLn 3r Fairhead and t.each (r995) have argued thrt state misreading ofgrassl.rnd
means "orchard" in some parrs of Borneo (Evans l9z3l r97o, z) and, forest succession in West Africa as foresr-grassland succession serves the
"village" rn othcrs. same funcdon ofprivileging the shic.
16 In some cases this mapping involves a reversal of meaning: tlJus, rcuma J2 Some scholars (e.g., Sivaramakrishnan r 998) argue rhar, notwirhstanding
tr,d kanpung nean"foresr and village" in !0esrJava (Adimihardia r992, this measure of success in vegetative terms, rhe Joinr Fores! Managemcnr
45), whcrers rwnab and kampung mean "village and foresr" among rhe program cqn srill be criricized as rhe latesr stage in a hiscory of state re-
lban (Richards t gt3 t, 47, 3 rz). defimrion ofcommuniry, control, and resource expertise rhar dares back to
r7 I am gratefulroJamesJ. Foxfor drawrDg this tomyatrenrion. colonul times ald beyond.
18 This ecologicalcycle ofrebirth may be reflecred in rhe genealogical cycle in 33 Srate assertion of ngency in this coniext is remarkably unaffected by poli-
Javanese mythology wherein the mother of rbe foresr spirt lald is said ro tics. Thus thr govcrnmenrs of Indonesia and Viernam hav€ labeled forest
be zrzo anorlrer cognate for su,idden l0xryer,et t 987). dwelling swidden peoples "communrsts" and "feudal lright-wingl rev;
-
t9 Thisdrchoromy ofswidden and ponrl6eld has b€encriricized how€ver, for sionists" respecnvely, but both labels really meant "iunglees." The srare
ignonng hybrids of rhe two as well as rhe exiscence of rdditional subsis policies pursued rn the rwo cases are rcmarkably similar.
tence systens such as the home garden (Padoch, Harwell and Susanro J4 It is precrsely where rhese terms would hrve rhe most relevaDce that rhey
r9e8) are not used. For example, the governrrents of lndouesia and Maloysia call
zo Kirch (1994, 16r) maintains, however, rhar in parrs of hisroric Polyne their respecrive forest-dwelling rribal populations no! "Forest peoplcs" but
sia pond field cultivarion was less labor inrensive chan dryland sudden suku terasing,"th,e forcign people," and o/arg asli, "rhe original people."
culnvation. l5 The indusrrialized counrries also were responsible, of course, fo( somc
2r See Hutterer (r98j,64), who wrires thar "Popularions engagrng in perma (but nor all) of the colonial era deforcsration in rhe countrics where rhis is
nenr neld agriculture have essentially 'locked rhcmselves our of rhe forest' now seen as a problem. See Said\ (r 978, 226) reference to a lirre in one of
conceptually. This fact is qurte easily denonsrrated by rhc mythological Kipling's poems, which reads, "Now, this is the road th;t the Vhrre Melr
conc€pturlizatio'r among such societics thar rhe foresr is dangerous and rread,Ilfhen rhey go to clean a land."
fearful, and by rheir pracdcal relucancc ro enter de jungl€ (e,g., Lombard J6 See G.ove's (r995) srudy of the linkagcs between contemporary global
r974)." environmenralism and colonial environmcntal discourses.
zz Ocher evidence irrcludes rhe hisroric pradice ofkeeping ar courr represen-
tarives of JavA's aurochthonous peoples (e.8., rhe Cadiab, Kumang, and
IadiaJ.
z3 Compare rhe ambivalence between vrllage and bush among rhe Dogon of
Mali (van Beck and Banga r99z).
r.4 See Foleyt (r987, 68-69; crted rn Vessing r991, 297) descriprion of the
idealized early Javanese landscape. "This is a kingdom wi!h mountains
behind, wer rice fields ro the righr, dry lields ro rhe lefc, and a grear porr
in fronr."
z5 A similar sysrcm of swidden robacco cuhivarion was pracriced in colonial
North Bornco (John and Jackson r 97t, cired in Doolirde r 999).
26 Sec NyerSes r994 on the "ecology of pracrice."
17 See Rangrn 1995 and Bloch r99j on varying interprerations of envi-
ronmental change accordiDs to local polirical and erhnic affiliations,
respecrively.
zll The subjecr of indigenous agency is drrwing increasing arrenrron from
historians of rhe region (Reynolds r995, 43 z).
19 Robbins (1998) similarly nores ihar in lndia srare affores(afion inrro,
duces not jusr species bur environmcnral meanings and priorirics. See

rzz MichaelR. Dovc Foresr Discourses rz3