Outside of this group, I believe my work will/is performing a similar type of work to Boyer's, detailing all of the factors, the multiplicity of forces, both historical and contemporaty, that enable, preclude, and characterize energy transition in a specific locale. However, I will dedicate more effort to developing that middle ground between conceptual minima and ethnographic maxima, primarily through the scales and systems. I hope to use the scales and system huristic to provide a clearer analysis of how these specific “multiplicity of forces” become entangled in different ways. I intend to tease out how these entanglements engender processes and phenomena that can be abstracted to generate such concepts as energopower and the like.
Renewable energy transition, if it recreates the same extractive, centralized, domineering, energopolitical regimes as the fossil fuel industry, has the potential to be just as damaging to the planet and to human beings as fossil fuels.
Abstract power concepts like energopower, biopolitics, capital do not do justice to the particularities of specific locales. Ethnography is needed to be better attuned to the historical and contemporary relations of power that characterize politics in the Anthropocene.
"If we wish to imagine and discuss aeolian futures in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec—or, for that matter, anywhere else in the world—what is needed are more and better ethnographies of the multiplicity of forces (historical and contemporary, material and anthropolitical) that are generating, inflecting, and obstructing potential futures" (193).
The separation of theory and ethnography in this text is… stark. There were literally only a few lines here and there that tied the ethnographic material back to the discussion in the introduction. I understand this to be an intervention in Anthropology that privileges ethnography over social theory. And I appreciate that. But perhaps there is a meso level between conceptual minima and ethnographic maxima? A level that identifies “the multiplicity of forces” that characterize the political terroir and that attempts to discern the entanglement of these forces in a way that clearly specifies the limits of the concept.
