Between worlds and politics: territorial ontologies and agrarian disputes in the Anthropocene
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36920/0ajrdp53Keywords:
political ontologies, territory, political ecology, agrarian movements, more-than-human, socio-environmental governanceAbstract
This article offers a theoretical reading of agrarian struggles as ontological disputes over territory, nature, and collective life. It argues that many contemporary rural conflicts cannot be reduced to resource distribution, as they entail clashes between ontologies: on the one hand, a modern ontology that renders land a governable asset, nature a stock, and development a universal horizon; on the other, relational ontologies that conceive territory as a web of ties among humans and more-than-humans, memory, labor, and care. Drawing on a critical review of literature in rural sociology, political ecology, and ontological debates, the article proposes an analytical framework to examine how agrarian movements “world” politics and thereby challenge participation and public policy models grounded in modern categories. It concludes by outlining implications for analyses of governance and socio-environmental justice.
Downloads
References
BLASER, Mario. Ontological conflicts and the stories of peoples in spite of Europe: toward a conversation on political ontology. Current Anthropology, Chicago, v. 54, n. 5, p. 547–568, 2013.
BOTELHO, Andressa Cabral. Novo processo de regularização ambiental prejudica quilombolas e povos tradicionais. Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), 13 maio 2022. Atualizado em 24 maio 2022. Disponível em: https://www.socioambiental.org/noticias-socioambientais/novo-processo-de-regularizacao-ambiental-prejudica-quilombolas-e-povos. Acesso em: 19 fev. 2026.
BOWKER, Geoffrey C.; STAR, Susan Leigh. Sorting things out: classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.
CASTREE, Noel. Commodifying what nature? Progress in Human Geography, v. 27, n. 3, p. 273–297, 2003.
CHAKRABARTY, Dipesh. The climate of history: four theses. Critical Inquiry, v. 35, n. 2, p. 197–222, 2009.
COSTANZA, Robert et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, v. 387, p. 253–260, 1997.
CRUTZEN, Paul J. Geology of mankind. Nature, v. 415, p. 23, 2002.
DE LA CADENA, Marisol. Indigenous cosmopolitics in the Andes: conceptual reflections beyond “politics”. Cultural Anthropology, v. 25, n. 2, p. 334–370, 2010.
DESCOLA, Philippe. Beyond nature and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013.
ESCOBAR, Arturo. Encountering development: the making and unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.
ESCOBAR, Arturo. Designs for the pluriverse: radical interdependence, autonomy, and the making of worlds. Durham: Duke University Press, 2018.
FERNANDES, Bernardo Mançano. Movimentos socioterritoriais e movimentos socioespaciais: contribuição teórica para uma leitura geográfica dos movimentos sociais. Revista NERA, Presidente Prudente, ano 8, n. 6, p. 24–34, jan./jun. 2012.
FERNANDES, Bernardo Mançano. Sobre a tipologia de territórios. Presidente Prudente: GEPEC/UNESP, 2008.
GRIFFITHS, John. What is legal pluralism? The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, v. 18, n. 24, p. 1–55, 1986.
HARAWAY, Donna. Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: making kin. Environmental Humanities, v. 6, n. 1, p. 159–165, 2015.
LATOUR, Bruno. We have never been modern. Tradução: Catherine Porter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.
LI, Tania Murray. The will to improve: governmentality, development, and the practice of politics. Durham: Duke University Press, 2007.
MARIANO, Alessandro Santos; LOMBARDI, José Claudinei. Método de formação política da escola nacional Florestan Fernandes do MST. Germinal: Marxismo e Educação em Debate, v. 11, n. 1, p. 203–209, 2019.
MERRY, Sally Engle. The seductions of quantification: measuring human rights, gender violence, and sex trafficking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016.
MOL, Annemarie. Ontological politics: a word and some questions. In: LAW, John; HASSARD, John (Ed.). Actor network theory and after. Oxford; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1999. p. 74–89.
MOORE, Jason W. The Capitalocene, Part I: on the nature and origins of our ecological crisis. The Journal of Peasant Studies, v. 44, n. 3, p. 594–630, 2017.
MULLA, David J. Twenty five years of remote sensing in precision agriculture: key advances and remaining knowledge gaps. Biosystems Engineering, v. 114, n. 4, p. 358–371, 2013.
OLIVEIRA, Rodrigo Magalhães de. “Respeitem a forma de a gente ser”: Protocolo de Consulta Munduruku e pluralismo jurídico. Revista Direito e Práxis, Rio de Janeiro, v. 12, n. 4, p. 2628–2657, 2021.
POLANYI, Karl. The great transformation: the political and economic origins of our time. New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1944.
PORTO-GONÇALVES, Carlos Walter. A globalização da natureza e a natureza da globalização. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2006.
PORTER, Theodore M. Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.
PUIG DE LA BELLACASA, María. Matters of care: speculative ethics in more than human worlds. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2017.
SANTOS, Boaventura de Sousa. Law: a map of misreading. Toward a postmodern conception of law. Journal of Law and Society, v. 14, n. 3, p. 279–302, 1987.
SANTOS, Milton. O retorno do território. In: SANTOS, Milton; SOUZA, Maria Adélia A.; SILVEIRA, Maria Laura (Org.). Território: globalização e fragmentação. 4. ed. São Paulo: Hucitec; ANPUR, 1998. p. 15–20.
SIEDER, Rachel (Ed.). Multiculturalism in Latin America: indigenous rights, diversity and democracy. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
SOUZA FILHO, Carlos Frederico Marés de; SONDA, Claudia; LEMOS, Priscilla. Cadastro Ambiental Rural (CAR) e povos tradicionais. Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFG, Goiânia, v. 39, n. 1, p. 243–259, jan./jun. 2015.
VIVEIROS DE CASTRO, Eduardo. Cosmological deixis and Amerindian perspectivism. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, v. 4, n. 3, p. 469–488, 1998.
VIVEIROS DE CASTRO, Eduardo. Perspectival anthropology and the method of controlled equivocation. Tipití: Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Lowland South America, v. 2, n. 1, 2004.
Documentos legais e institucionais citados no manuscrito
BRASIL. Constituição (1988): Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República, 1988. Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm. Acesso em: 19 fev. 2026.
BRASIL. Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária (INCRA). Certificação de imóvel rural. Brasília, DF, 28 jan. 2020. Atualizado em 19 maio 2025. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/incra/pt-br/assuntos/governanca-fundiaria/certificacao-imoveis. Acesso em: 19 fev. 2026.
BRASIL. Ministério da Gestão e da Inovação em Serviços Públicos. Inscrever imóvel rural no Cadastro Ambiental Rural (CAR). Brasília, DF, 2025. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/pt-br/servicos/inscrever-imovel-rural-no-cadastro-ambiental-rural-car. Acesso em: 19 fev. 2026.
ORGANIZAÇÃO INTERNACIONAL DO TRABALHO. Convenção n. 169 sobre povos indígenas e tribais. Genebra, 1989. Disponível em: https://www.ilo.org/pt-pt/resource/convention-169. Acesso em: 19 fev. 2026.
Materiais de movimentos e organizações citados no manuscrito
FASE. Carta de movimentos denuncia invisibilização de povos e comunidades tradicionais no Cadastro Ambiental Rural. 31 ago. 2018. Disponível em: https://fase.org.br/pt/informe-se/noticias/carta-de-movimentos-denuncia-invisibilizacao-de-povos-e-comunidades-tradicionais-no-cadastro-ambiental-rural/. Acesso em: 19 fev. 2026.
MOVIMENTO MUNDURUKU IPEREG AYU; ASSOCIAÇÕES DA’UK; PUSURU; WUYXAXIMÃ; KEREPO; PAHYHYP. Protocolo de Consulta Munduruku. [S.l.: s.n.], 2014. Disponível em: https://acervo.socioambiental.org/sites/default/files/documents/mud00083.pdf. Acesso em: 19 fev. 2026.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Eduarda Paz Trindade
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right to first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons License (CC BY 4.0) which allows the sharing of the work with recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (eg in institutional repositories or on their personal page) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this can generate productive changes, as well as increase impact and citation of the published work.
- Authors can make independent and additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the article published in this journal (for example, include it in an institutional repository or publish it in a book) always showing that the work was published first in Revista IDeAS.
