Take Home Essay
Political Ecologies: Nature, Humans and Non-Humans (202200003)
Name: Pim
Student ID number: …
E-mailadres: …
Date: June 20th, 2024
Tutor: M. Bedert
Page numbers: 10
Page 1 of 10
,Question 1
Throughout the semester, we have discussed how living amid multispecies communities
entails different forms of risk and care. How are questions of risk and care put into play in
exploring more-than-human communities? Discuss through specific examples that put any
three of the following readings in conversation.
Exploring more-than-human communities can be brought back to the recent turns taken up in
cultural anthropology, specifically with the animal and the affective turn (Parreñas 2012).
These turns have shaped the way in which humanity is perceived through multispecies
encounters and focus on something more comprehensive than just a human-centered
anthropology of emotions (Saraf 2024b). More-than-human communities refer to the
interconnectedness of different entities within an environment and emphasize recognizing
that humans are just one part of a larger, more complex web of life (Akarsu 2024). When it
comes to beings that cannot speak, feeling and touching are crucial forms of cross-specific
communication (Parreñas 2012). The emergence of multispecies ethnography brings beings
previously relegated to the margins of anthropology into the foreground of study (Saraf
2024b). The core and attributes of humans within studying specific multispecies are being
questioned, resulting in questions on how we as humans relate to other lifeforms (Saraf
2024a). The recent turn in thinking and behaving, when conducting research, supports social
scientists to study the interconnectedness of more-than-human communities effectively and
creates a framework for how risk and care are put into play.
By conducting research within a village called Khalaoyam in West-Papua, Chao
(2022) explores the human-animal relationship between a local community and wild animals
as the result of an expanding oil palm plantation. Parts of the natural forest are being leveled
and burned, resulting in the rescue of a baby cassowary, later named Ruben, who leaves its
wild habitat to live among the villagers (Chao 2022). Like Ruben, there are more cases of
‘wild’ animals in this particular study that once thrived in the forest but now dwell in the
village, depending on humans for their survival and even showing human-like behavior such
as consuming human food. This results in unusual situations for the local community, which
describes those animals as abu-abu, a gray area. Chao (2022) distinguishes between wild
animals capable of living autonomously within multispecies social and ecological networks
and domesticated animals, those who rely on humans regarding their survival (Chao 2022).
On the one hand, community members feel the necessity of caring for the animals that have
Page 2 of 10
, been affected by human intervention, such as the expansion of the oil palm plantation. Just
like the villagers themselves, they both tend to suffer from the effects of this environmental
degradation, which can be seen as a motivator to care for the wild animals. On the other hand,
this feeling of caring puts the relationship between wild animals and villagers at risk. These,
for the local villagers, uncategorizable animals, are being caught by a changing human
ontology on them, which results in a local struggle on how to view and deal with these
animals. Normally, wild animals, such as cassowaries, are hunted down and used as a source
of food, but their killability has changed (Akarsu 2024). With the similarities that the local
community identifies between Ruben and themselves, the idea of using them for food is
totally excluded (Chao 2022). The role of formerly wild village animals within this particular
area’s multispecies social and ecological network isn’t really clear anymore.
In relation to the article by Parreñas (2012), the question of risk and care shows a
variety of similarities. This study on exploring a more-than-human community examines how
custodial labor within a Malaysian orangutan rehabilitation center results in affective
encounters of mutual vulnerability, which is crucial for the orangutan center’s operation. The
term custodial labor describes how affective encounters between bodies provide a sense of
purpose for professional workers who engage in volunteer work. Most of the people
committing this volunteer work live in the Global North. They will only do this temporarily
and pay thousands of dollars to be able to travel to these locations in order to leave after a
certain amount of time. This form of commercial volunteerism strengthens a sense of
contributing positively to ‘the marginalized other’, in this case, the orangutans. It illustrates
how caring is put into play in order to achieve personal fulfillment (Parreñas 2012). Similar
to the findings in Chao’s (2022) article, both studies show that humans feel the obligation to
care for non-human species who experience the consequences of human interventions with
nature. However, there is a distinction in the form of risk. Chao’s (2022) study focuses on the
risk associated with the changing interrelationship between wild animals that come to live in
the village and the local villagers, which could result in safety concerns and changing
dynamics (Chao 2022). Parreñas (2012) addresses the physical risk to both humans and
orangutans of getting injured by each other. Additionally, the orangutan is also at risk of
getting hurt by volunteers, who, in most cases, are not trained and specialized in working
amongst these wild animals. The affect occurring in a situation where both sides act
alongside each other relates to an emotional state and can be described as a mutual
vulnerability (Parreñas 2012). Neither the volunteers nor the orangutans have the agency to
govern each other in their behavior, leading to a less effective way of caring, and this
Page 3 of 10
Political Ecologies: Nature, Humans and Non-Humans (202200003)
Name: Pim
Student ID number: …
E-mailadres: …
Date: June 20th, 2024
Tutor: M. Bedert
Page numbers: 10
Page 1 of 10
,Question 1
Throughout the semester, we have discussed how living amid multispecies communities
entails different forms of risk and care. How are questions of risk and care put into play in
exploring more-than-human communities? Discuss through specific examples that put any
three of the following readings in conversation.
Exploring more-than-human communities can be brought back to the recent turns taken up in
cultural anthropology, specifically with the animal and the affective turn (Parreñas 2012).
These turns have shaped the way in which humanity is perceived through multispecies
encounters and focus on something more comprehensive than just a human-centered
anthropology of emotions (Saraf 2024b). More-than-human communities refer to the
interconnectedness of different entities within an environment and emphasize recognizing
that humans are just one part of a larger, more complex web of life (Akarsu 2024). When it
comes to beings that cannot speak, feeling and touching are crucial forms of cross-specific
communication (Parreñas 2012). The emergence of multispecies ethnography brings beings
previously relegated to the margins of anthropology into the foreground of study (Saraf
2024b). The core and attributes of humans within studying specific multispecies are being
questioned, resulting in questions on how we as humans relate to other lifeforms (Saraf
2024a). The recent turn in thinking and behaving, when conducting research, supports social
scientists to study the interconnectedness of more-than-human communities effectively and
creates a framework for how risk and care are put into play.
By conducting research within a village called Khalaoyam in West-Papua, Chao
(2022) explores the human-animal relationship between a local community and wild animals
as the result of an expanding oil palm plantation. Parts of the natural forest are being leveled
and burned, resulting in the rescue of a baby cassowary, later named Ruben, who leaves its
wild habitat to live among the villagers (Chao 2022). Like Ruben, there are more cases of
‘wild’ animals in this particular study that once thrived in the forest but now dwell in the
village, depending on humans for their survival and even showing human-like behavior such
as consuming human food. This results in unusual situations for the local community, which
describes those animals as abu-abu, a gray area. Chao (2022) distinguishes between wild
animals capable of living autonomously within multispecies social and ecological networks
and domesticated animals, those who rely on humans regarding their survival (Chao 2022).
On the one hand, community members feel the necessity of caring for the animals that have
Page 2 of 10
, been affected by human intervention, such as the expansion of the oil palm plantation. Just
like the villagers themselves, they both tend to suffer from the effects of this environmental
degradation, which can be seen as a motivator to care for the wild animals. On the other hand,
this feeling of caring puts the relationship between wild animals and villagers at risk. These,
for the local villagers, uncategorizable animals, are being caught by a changing human
ontology on them, which results in a local struggle on how to view and deal with these
animals. Normally, wild animals, such as cassowaries, are hunted down and used as a source
of food, but their killability has changed (Akarsu 2024). With the similarities that the local
community identifies between Ruben and themselves, the idea of using them for food is
totally excluded (Chao 2022). The role of formerly wild village animals within this particular
area’s multispecies social and ecological network isn’t really clear anymore.
In relation to the article by Parreñas (2012), the question of risk and care shows a
variety of similarities. This study on exploring a more-than-human community examines how
custodial labor within a Malaysian orangutan rehabilitation center results in affective
encounters of mutual vulnerability, which is crucial for the orangutan center’s operation. The
term custodial labor describes how affective encounters between bodies provide a sense of
purpose for professional workers who engage in volunteer work. Most of the people
committing this volunteer work live in the Global North. They will only do this temporarily
and pay thousands of dollars to be able to travel to these locations in order to leave after a
certain amount of time. This form of commercial volunteerism strengthens a sense of
contributing positively to ‘the marginalized other’, in this case, the orangutans. It illustrates
how caring is put into play in order to achieve personal fulfillment (Parreñas 2012). Similar
to the findings in Chao’s (2022) article, both studies show that humans feel the obligation to
care for non-human species who experience the consequences of human interventions with
nature. However, there is a distinction in the form of risk. Chao’s (2022) study focuses on the
risk associated with the changing interrelationship between wild animals that come to live in
the village and the local villagers, which could result in safety concerns and changing
dynamics (Chao 2022). Parreñas (2012) addresses the physical risk to both humans and
orangutans of getting injured by each other. Additionally, the orangutan is also at risk of
getting hurt by volunteers, who, in most cases, are not trained and specialized in working
amongst these wild animals. The affect occurring in a situation where both sides act
alongside each other relates to an emotional state and can be described as a mutual
vulnerability (Parreñas 2012). Neither the volunteers nor the orangutans have the agency to
govern each other in their behavior, leading to a less effective way of caring, and this
Page 3 of 10
