Periodic Reporting for period 4 - uEcologies (Urban Ecologies: governing nonhuman life in global cities)
Reporting period: 2023-02-01 to 2024-07-31
A fundamental dimension of contemporary, global urbanization is its radical transformation of nature. Domestic animals now make up more than twice the biomass of humans on the planet. They are vital to livelihoods of the urban poor in the Global South, providing economic opportunities, yet posing zoonotic risks. In contrast, cities of the North are marked by the relative absence of animals in urban spheres and a strict control of their bodies and presence. Despite the critical role of animals and nonhuman life in forging urban living, forms of governance and the politics of inhabiting cities, they have received scant systematic attention in the social sciences.
The aim of the Urban Ecologies project is to examine how human-animal dynamics and their relation to the built environment configures the scope and ambit of urban governance. It marks a major theoretical departure from ongoing attempts to specify how cities are organized, regulated and ordered. To this end, Urban Ecologies is focused on four key arenas of inquiry: (1) examining how human-animal dynamics are differentially composed in cities of the global South and global North; (2) appraising the social, economic and spatial forces that structure these dynamics; (3) generating new perspectives in urban studies through an ecological understanding of urban governance; and (4) exploring how such understandings might contribute to agendas of promoting resilient and sustainable cities.
These objectives translate into a specific set of themes, explored comparatively through cities of the Global South and North, to forge new ways of understanding contemporary urbanization. The first pertains to materiality or the ecology of cities, differentially understood as cultivated, feral and wild. The second theme entails infrastructures, including how the built environment structures animal lives and the ways in which infrastructure is repurposed by nonhumans. The third attends to urban metabolism or the social, spatial and material transformations of nature that unfold in urban landscapes with uneven and often coercive effects. The fourth major theme pertains to biopolitics or the ways in which life is administered in urban arenas by the state and capital. These themes are tied together to develop new visions of how urban governance unfold.
The project investigates these themes in a comparative manner, attentive to both difference as well variations. Urban Ecologies starts from the premise that cities and their constituent ecologies are not the same everywhere. Rather what needs to be accounted for is historical difference and the ways in which these have bearings upon urban formations in their specificity. The comparative endeavour unfolds along two axes: the first is between cities of the Global North (London), and those of the South (New Delhi, Guwahati); the second pertaining to difference within the South, including postcolonial metropolises (Delhi) and ‘ordinary’ cities but with populations of over one million people and indicative of where much of contemporary global urbanization is happening (Guwahati).
Urban Ecologies seeks to resituate urban governance and contribute to new ways of re-envisioning more equitable urban lives.
The aim of the Urban Ecologies project is to examine how human-animal dynamics and their relation to the built environment configures the scope and ambit of urban governance. It marks a major theoretical departure from ongoing attempts to specify how cities are organized, regulated and ordered. To this end, Urban Ecologies is focused on four key arenas of inquiry: (1) examining how human-animal dynamics are differentially composed in cities of the global South and global North; (2) appraising the social, economic and spatial forces that structure these dynamics; (3) generating new perspectives in urban studies through an ecological understanding of urban governance; and (4) exploring how such understandings might contribute to agendas of promoting resilient and sustainable cities.
These objectives translate into a specific set of themes, explored comparatively through cities of the Global South and North, to forge new ways of understanding contemporary urbanization. The first pertains to materiality or the ecology of cities, differentially understood as cultivated, feral and wild. The second theme entails infrastructures, including how the built environment structures animal lives and the ways in which infrastructure is repurposed by nonhumans. The third attends to urban metabolism or the social, spatial and material transformations of nature that unfold in urban landscapes with uneven and often coercive effects. The fourth major theme pertains to biopolitics or the ways in which life is administered in urban arenas by the state and capital. These themes are tied together to develop new visions of how urban governance unfold.
The project investigates these themes in a comparative manner, attentive to both difference as well variations. Urban Ecologies starts from the premise that cities and their constituent ecologies are not the same everywhere. Rather what needs to be accounted for is historical difference and the ways in which these have bearings upon urban formations in their specificity. The comparative endeavour unfolds along two axes: the first is between cities of the Global North (London), and those of the South (New Delhi, Guwahati); the second pertaining to difference within the South, including postcolonial metropolises (Delhi) and ‘ordinary’ cities but with populations of over one million people and indicative of where much of contemporary global urbanization is happening (Guwahati).
Urban Ecologies seeks to resituate urban governance and contribute to new ways of re-envisioning more equitable urban lives.
Main Results
The main results are presented in terms of the four key themes that the project investigates, namely: materiality, infrastructure, metabolism and biopolitics, as they cut through the three different cities.
(1) Materiality: our work has revealed how cities have very specific configurations in terms of their ecology and this is constituted by difference. The ways in which the material life of cities is configured – whether these are cultivated, feral, or wild – has bearings upon and are shaped by relations with people, the wider built environment and regimes of urban governance.
(2) Infrastructure: emerged as a key theme during the lifecourse of the project. It has entailed examining the enmeshment of animal life with the built environment and the ways in which the latter structures how nonhumans dwell in the city. The project’s work in Delhi has led to a critical re-evaluation of contemporary accounts on infrastructure. Our research posits a wider infrastructural ontology that accounts for nonhuman lives and forces, furthering debates on what is a vibrant arena of social science scholarship.
(3) Metabolism: ongoing work has looked at different metabolic regimes in Delhi, including the relations between animal life and waste in urban slums, and the contestation of urban cattle over what might be called the ‘metabolic commons’, or the commons of basic staples. Our research reveals the importance of metabolism in forging urban ecologies.
(4) Biopolitics: refers to the administration of life at various levels, from bodies to populations, and is a key element of urban governance. To this end, biopolitics is a theme that draws different aspects of urban life together to get at the main question of governing cities by regulating nonhuman life. We have mapped different ecologies – the cultivated, feral and the wild – to show how biopolitical regimes work differently and in conjunction with the forms of life concerned.
The main results are presented in terms of the four key themes that the project investigates, namely: materiality, infrastructure, metabolism and biopolitics, as they cut through the three different cities.
(1) Materiality: our work has revealed how cities have very specific configurations in terms of their ecology and this is constituted by difference. The ways in which the material life of cities is configured – whether these are cultivated, feral, or wild – has bearings upon and are shaped by relations with people, the wider built environment and regimes of urban governance.
(2) Infrastructure: emerged as a key theme during the lifecourse of the project. It has entailed examining the enmeshment of animal life with the built environment and the ways in which the latter structures how nonhumans dwell in the city. The project’s work in Delhi has led to a critical re-evaluation of contemporary accounts on infrastructure. Our research posits a wider infrastructural ontology that accounts for nonhuman lives and forces, furthering debates on what is a vibrant arena of social science scholarship.
(3) Metabolism: ongoing work has looked at different metabolic regimes in Delhi, including the relations between animal life and waste in urban slums, and the contestation of urban cattle over what might be called the ‘metabolic commons’, or the commons of basic staples. Our research reveals the importance of metabolism in forging urban ecologies.
(4) Biopolitics: refers to the administration of life at various levels, from bodies to populations, and is a key element of urban governance. To this end, biopolitics is a theme that draws different aspects of urban life together to get at the main question of governing cities by regulating nonhuman life. We have mapped different ecologies – the cultivated, feral and the wild – to show how biopolitical regimes work differently and in conjunction with the forms of life concerned.
Urban Ecologies endeavours to go beyond the state-of-the-art in human geography and urban studies through two avenues: by developing novel methodologies combining ethnography and ecological science, and by generating concepts that cross disciplinary boundaries and expand the scope of the interpretative social sciences.
The project has developed and operationalized a novel set of methodologies for attending to urban life and for rethinking how cities are inhabited by nonhuman life. This draws upon ethological perspectives developed by the key project partner and, through the work of the four PhD scholars and PI, brings it into conversation with ethnography. More specifically, we have been able to elucidate the lives of street dogs, urban cattle and pigs in informal settlements, the ways in which they interrelate with the lives of people. This has also been done, to a limited extent, with urban macaques. This new etho-geographical or ethno-ethological approach foregrounds how nonhumans act and view the city, bringing in a completely new way to understand how the urban is apprehended and felt. Equally, these methods bring in a raft of new perspectives on how nonhuman life has bearings on the shape and ambit of urban governance. Whilst there have been several calls for taking nonhuman lives seriously, including ‘multi-species ethnographies’, much of it remains promissory. Ours is one of the first systematic endeavours of putting this to practice. We have now published this through a serieis of papers and a major monograph by the PI. A second monograph from the project is currently being drafted. This work has been presented in a number of forums and we are now developing further cutting-edge work which will be written up over the next few months.
The project has developed and operationalized a novel set of methodologies for attending to urban life and for rethinking how cities are inhabited by nonhuman life. This draws upon ethological perspectives developed by the key project partner and, through the work of the four PhD scholars and PI, brings it into conversation with ethnography. More specifically, we have been able to elucidate the lives of street dogs, urban cattle and pigs in informal settlements, the ways in which they interrelate with the lives of people. This has also been done, to a limited extent, with urban macaques. This new etho-geographical or ethno-ethological approach foregrounds how nonhumans act and view the city, bringing in a completely new way to understand how the urban is apprehended and felt. Equally, these methods bring in a raft of new perspectives on how nonhuman life has bearings on the shape and ambit of urban governance. Whilst there have been several calls for taking nonhuman lives seriously, including ‘multi-species ethnographies’, much of it remains promissory. Ours is one of the first systematic endeavours of putting this to practice. We have now published this through a serieis of papers and a major monograph by the PI. A second monograph from the project is currently being drafted. This work has been presented in a number of forums and we are now developing further cutting-edge work which will be written up over the next few months.