2-s2.0-85048660069

[vc_empty_space][vc_empty_space]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624529070653{padding-top: 30px !important;padding-bottom: 30px !important;}”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner layout=”boxed”][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″ css=”.vc_custom_1624695412187{border-right-width: 1px !important;border-right-color: #dddddd !important;border-right-style: solid !important;border-radius: 1px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Abstract” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text]© 2018 selection and editorial matter, Jérémie Forney, Chris Rosin and Hugh Campbell; individual chapters, the contributors.What is also of interest is the manner in which many different actors – Dutch colonial government, missionaries, Indonesia’s public officials, technical experts, international donors, and political activists – have done what they thought were the right schemes to govern the local community. This is what she envisaged as the practices of assemblage (Li, 2007b). Referring to Deleuze and Guatarri’s (1988) assemblage thinking, Li theorized an analytical framework to understand how assemblage is practiced amidst a seemingly unmanageable community forest. The moral of the story is by all means assemblage-minded: that the practice of governance is a process comprising heterogeneous elements, both of the actors/agents and the objectives, and that the results of this process are often capricious and ephemeral. Li’s article (and book) elegantly juxtaposes the whole theoretical framing of Foucauldian governmentality and Deleuzian assemblage on the same page. Gilles Deleuze, of course, was a good friend of Michel Foucault, and much of his thinking was influenced by the latter. In his book Negotiations (1995; with a particular note on the last chapter), Deleuze continued to link his ideas with those of Foucault by examining Foucault’s disciplinary societies and reflecting this with the evolution of our current society. He distinguished the disciplinary society from what he termed a society of control, as much as Foucault himself contrasted the disciplinary society with the preceding sovereign society (see Foucault, 1977/1995). The society of sovereign was characterized by the era of colonialism and European imperialism prior to the eighteenth century and involved society’s obedience to the law of the king, taxation for the peasants, and rule on death. This type of society was soon replaced by a new type of society that was founded on the growth of the Industrial Revolution. This society was regulated on the basis of the organization of space, time and people’s activity by a single authority with the help of complex disciplinary systems. Society, as Foucault argues, transitions from one form to the other, to the point where even the disciplinary society would come to a crisis. Deleuze elaborated further on what this transition should become. A society of control is something entirely different from its predecessor. In contrast with the disciplinary society that relies on spaces of enclosure (family, school, factory, prison, etc.) and discontinued productions, a society of control puts people under continuous control and surveillance. So, school is replaced by perpetual training and factories by corporations. A society of control is no longer governed by a centralized governing body that acts as a panopticon, but through dispersed power in the society as a whole – a condition whereby society becomes an agent in their own right. Furthermore, the type of capitalism that this society embodies is that of a higher-order production: “… it no longer buys raw materials and no longer sells finished products; it buys finished products or assembles them from parts. What it seeks to sell is services, and what it seeks to buy, activities” (Deleuze, 1995: 181). A matter of concern in this chapter is modes of production, which shows differences between the two societies. The disciplinary society creates moulds, a situation where the governments, schools or factories create standards to which everyone is bound so as to be functional in the society. A society of control, on the other hand, creates modulation, where the production and reproduction processes do not stop in each institution, but are continuously connected between one module and another. Even an individual is no longer perceived as a single unit, but dividual – we become divisible data used for the sake of control (see Carolan, 2016 for a case of precision farming). People and space, in this case, are transient, fluid and always becoming. Control, as Deleuze (1995: 181) puts it, “is short-term and rapidly shifting, but at the same time continuous and unbounded, whereas discipline was long-term, infinite, and discontinuous.” This resonates with Deleuze and Guatarri’s (1988) idea of assemblage, which posits the way in which heterogeneous elements, be they people, institutions, and objectives, are entangled with one another and held together without ceasing to be heterogeneous. Of course, the two tenets come from the same persons. Yet, a point of interest is the slightly nuanced emphases of the two; while assemblage indicates no primacy of action or intention (everything happens due to the potentiality and exterior relationality of each element), a society of control relies on a deliberate, albeit dispersed, power such that is exerted by corporations (which are controlled by stockholders) in the modern capitalist system. This is perhaps one fracture point of the two theoretical framings. Another fracture point that is critical to this chapter is the chronological sequence of the societal transitions. On one hand, Deleuze and Guatarri’s conceptualization of assemblage pivots around transience, fluidity, and non-linearity. There is no predetermined trajectory of how a society develops, in contrast to a more structuralist understanding of our modern history (revisiting, e.g., Friedmann and McMichael, 1989). On the other hand, Deleuze’s reading of his twentiethcentury men indicates the use of a rather deterministic spectacle. It is as if to say that there is a certain shift from one realm to another, something that creeps into every space of enclosure and from which we cannot escape. Yet, Hardt and Negri (2000) argue that Deleuze’s concept of control society is, in fact, negligible. In their argument, the emergence of such a society can best be seen as a generalization rather than an indicative transformation. For instance, Lavin (2009) confirms that the agrifood relations in the twenty-first century is still that of disciplinary, albeit on a different subject (consumers rather than producers). In reference to the three different societies (sovereign, disciplinary and control) that are described sequentially, Indonesia’s agricultural (and environmental) governance was arguably founded on the basis of the transition between those different constructions of societies. This can be observed, although vaguely, as corresponding with the history of Indonesia from the era of colonialism to the present day. The argument, thus, would follow: that if the early colonial era resembles a Foucauldian sovereign society and the time between the Industrial Revolution and the New Order Regime of post-colonial Indonesia resembles the disciplinary society, then Indonesia’s agriculture is now transitioning to a Deleuzian society of control. However, the finding shows that a transition is not necessarily discontinuous. Assemblage is being made in the very conceptions of societies that Deleuze posits. What has become of a society that simultaneously disciplines and controls? The framing of ‘society of control’ is, in this case, useful to the extent that it helps provide an analytical framing for the changing agricultural structure in Indonesia, although I also argue that an assemblage of ‘disciplinary-control societies’ can mutually exist. Focusing on various political and economic instruments related to Agri-Environmental Governance (AEG), the case will illustrate how an assemblage of heterogeneous elements shapes the way societies were governed during the course of history in Indonesia, and, consequently, how a multiplicity of agricultural society is conceived.[/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Author keywords” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Indexed keywords” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Funding details” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”DOI” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text]https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315114941[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_column_text]Widget Plumx[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][/vc_column][/vc_row]