New publication! I wrote a conceptual paper reflecting on how to study the material roots of socio-ecological conflicts using a metabolic rift approach. This is the story of how this paper came to be 🧵 doi.org/10.1177/0486...

In my thesis, I analyse social conflicts and divides around green policies, but before doing a case study, I wanted to reflect on the theoretical approach and research strategy to analyse those conflicts and divides. This article is the outcome of this reflection.

I had learned from Marxist ecology literature that, just as organisms or cells, societies have a metabolism with their environments, without which they cannot live. They take raw materials and energy, transform nature, and leave waste in the process of producing goods to cover human needs.

I had also learned that ecological problems appear when this metabolic interaction between humans and their environments enters into contradiction with natural cycles (e.g., displacing the nutrients of the soil or disrupting the hydric cycle by taking too much water fast). That is a metabolic rift.

I thought it was a great idea to use a metabolic approach to study socio-ecological conflicts, but I also thought: sure, more mining will generate more conflicts around mining, but I would like to be able to say something more. Why does mining increase? Why is this mining conflictive?

Being a fan of J. B. Foster, I thought using a metabolic rift approach to analyse the material bases of socio-ecological conflicts would be pertinent. As a Marxist approach, it is inherently historical and links social contradictions and ecological degradation to capital accumulation.

What was common between Foster and that literature on ecological distribution conflicts was their understanding of social metabolism as flows of energy and materials. Foster (and many others) attribute this definition to Marx, but I couldn't find the passage where Marx said that.

After analysing all Marx's passages on metabolism, I realised that he doesn't use the term "social metabolism" as a synonym for the metabolic interaction between humans and nature, but to refer to the internal metabolism in society, by which the products of labour reach human needs (circulation).

Therefore, I could see that when Marx talks about a rift in social metabolism, he is referring to a separation in the social terrain. A separation between production and consumption, between labour products and human needs, between humans and their conditions of reproduction.

Those separations in the social terrain create the setting for the disruption of natural cycles, generating ecological conflicts. So, bingo! This view connected social contradictions with natural degradation and could be useful to study the link between social conflicts and ecological issues.