FORPOL-00744; No of Pages 12

Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forest Policy and Economics

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / f o r p o l

Foucault in the forests—A review of the use of ‘Foucauldian’ concepts in forest

policy analysis
Georg Winkel ⁎
Institute of Forest and Environmental Policy, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online xxxx In this paper, a review is conducted on the use of the concepts of Michel Foucault in forest policy analysis. In
doing so, three major questions are posed: (1) how Foucauldian thinking has influenced the analysis of forest
Keywords: policy, (2) what has been excluded from the analysis, and (3) how a Foucauldian perspective contributes to an
Discourse analysis enhancement of the theoretical knowledge on forest policy as well as how it may be used in future analyses.
Governmentality Accordingly, in the first section, the Foucauldian concepts that have been the most influential to forest policy
Foucault
analysis, discourse, knowledge, and power as well as governmentality are introduced and summarized in a
Power-knowledge
Political ecology
table aiming to outline a ‘Foucauldian perspective’. Subsequently, thirty-nine papers on forest policy that
Policy analysis draw on Foucauldian concepts are analyzed with regard to the following dimensions: author, academic
background, research motivation, regional focuses, topics and time span covered by the analysis, disciplinary
approach, frameworks, theoretical approach and Foucauldian concepts used, methods, main findings, and the
conclusions drawn by the scholars about the value of using Foucault for their research. Additionally, the
development of the studies over time is analyzed.
It can be shown that Foucauldian thoughts have inspired the analysis of forest policy in two major ways: first,
via post-structural political ecology studies and, second, via post-positivist discourse analysis. While nearly all
of the papers were written by geographers, anthropologists, and policy analysts affiliated with European or
North American universities, most of the studies analyzed forest policies in developing countries. Less
frequently, conflicts about boreal forests were addressed. Consequently, two commonly found patterns were:
an extension of the suppressive effects of colonial forest governmentalities into modern forest policies and
discursive struggles about the use of forests. All of the papers shared some common elements, such as: a
skeptical attitude towards claims of a single rationality and an objective truth and, in particular, toward
central state and capitalist discourses; an interest in the suppressive effects of dominant types of language and
knowledge; an understanding that language and knowledge need to be addressed as aspects of power; and an
emancipatory motive and interest in broadening the available knowledge base and democratizing policy
making. Finally, the results are discussed, and the initially posed questions are again addressed. It is
recommended that the Foucauldian analysis of forest policy should literally escape from its own main
discourse and address topics that were largely neglected until now.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction: how Foucault went into the forest
To be honest, I could find nothing within the rich literature on or
by French philosopher Michel Foucault about how he regarded forests
or how often—if ever—he spent time in forests. Considering his
personal vita largely represents the stereotype of a highly urbanized
intellectual and a member of the big cities philosophical intelligentsia,
and that his main emphasis is on societal and basic human issues, one
may even doubt if Foucault had anything that could be called a
relationship with forests and issues concerning their use. This,
however, is beyond my knowledge. What can be said is that Foucault's
⁎ Tel.: +49 7612033713; fax: +49 7612033705.
E-mail address: georg.winkel@ifp.uni-freiburg.de.
URL: http://portal.uni-freiburg.de/ifp.
thoughts were influential on the manner in which many forest policy
analyses were made. One might consider it somehow curious to
devote an entire article about one specific thinker to this special issue,
particularly one that cannot be considered a political or forest science
scholar. An even greater paradox is perhaps to do this despite Foucault
himself tending to devalue the importance of individual thinkers in
discourse. Yet, his concepts of truth, knowledge, power, and discourse,
are increasingly being taken up by scholars analyzing forest policy
issues. This was the motivation for compiling this paper.
There have been different ways in which Foucault and his thoughts
have entered both forest and forest policy analysis. This includes, as I
will illustrate, approaches such as discursive policy analysis, political
ecology, and anthropological studies. In this paper, I will analyze these
ways by posing the following questions: (1) how Foucauldian
thinking has influenced the analysis of forest policy; (2) what has

1389-9341/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.11.009

Please cite this article as: Winkel, G., Foucault in the forests—A review of the use of ‘Foucauldian’ concepts in forest policy analysis, Forest
Policy and Economics (2011), doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.11.009
2 G. Winkel / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
been excluded from the analysis; and (3) how Foucauldian perspec-
tives can enhance the theoretical knowledge of forest policy analysis
as well as how it may be used in future studies. Hence, the paper is
structured as follows: First, some of Foucault's concepts that turned
out to be the most relevant to this paper will be introduced and
summarized in a table that aims to outline a ‘Foucauldian perspective’.
Afterwards, an extensive review of the use of Foucauldian concepts in
forest policy analysis is presented with regard to different dimensions,
e.g. the theoretical and methodical approaches of the studies. Finally,
after addressing the three aforementioned research questions, the
future potential of Foucauldian concepts in forest policy analysis is
discussed.
2. Foucauldian thinking and policy analysis
As was pointed out in the beginning of this article, Foucault's ideas
have influenced environmental policy analysis throughout the last
decade. However, as Keller (2007) sardonically points out, the
Foucauldian (discourse) analysis as such does not exist, as concrete
instructions on how to empirically apply his concepts to policy problems
were hardly provided by Foucault himself. Moreover, his central
concepts are difficult to operationalize and are sometimes used in a
confusing or even contradictory manner. Concerning Foucauldian
literary language, even key concepts are used differently (Reisigl,
2006). Obviously, this presents a notable challenge when striving for
an outline of Foucauldian thinking. In the following, however, the
Foucauldian thoughts and concepts that have emerged as being the most
influential for forest policy analysis over the course of this review are
introduced, taking the limitations mentioned previously into account.
2.1. Discourse, knowledge, and power
The Foucauldian concept of discourse is, first of all, rather indistinct
(Reisigl, 2006). Foucault might have described discourse as being a
large stream of spoken or written language that provides meaning for
the interpretation of social or physical events. For him, discourse is an
ominous power that is expressed by the huge amount of words that
are spoken as well as through other discursive practices. This power
creates and destroys, as well as constructs, time and location-bound
rationalities; it determines the ways we perceive reality (Foucault,
2003). Literally, Foucauldian discourse can be understood as a wild
stream of language and other discursive practices that threatens the
settlements and well-ordered areas at its banks and that is always
prepared to change its flow and break away from its well maintained
path. As discourse gives meaning to social and physical events, it also
enables thinking and legitimizes the actions of individuals. In doing
so, however, discourse automatically excludes other potentials to
speak, think, and act (Landwehr, 2006, p. 109), leading to a shortage of
acceptable statements about reality. That is, discourse both enables
and restricts thinking at the same time (Joutsenvirta, 2009, p. 242).
This ambivalence complies with the ‘productive function’ of
Foucauldian discourse (in other words, its empowering effects): “By
delineating legitimate forms of truth production from illegitimate
ones, a discursive formation includes the establishment of the terms
of its reproduction and the allocation of empowering and disempow-
ering subject positions” (Feindt and Oels, 2005, p. 164).
Consequently, discourse automatically creates power structures
that are relevant for the freedom of social and political actors' actions.
Power is thereby understood as “a power of definition which excludes
alternative realities and is based on different resources, i.e. the social
structuring of what we perceive to be real” (Keller, 2006, p. 127,
translated by the author). Power is omnipresent in all social actions
and, therefore, cannot simply be located within a society. Thus,
Foucault virtually “cuts off the king's head in political theory”
(Biebricher, 2007, p. 227) in his aim to shift attention away from
the formal centers of power and towards the misty power of
Please cite this article as: Winkel, G., Foucault in the forests—A review of the use of ‘Foucauldian’ concepts in forest policy analysis, Forest
Policy and Economics (2011), doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.11.009
discourse. In doing so, power becomes as ambivalent as the concept
of discourse itself because it is not only seen as being oppressive, but
also simultaneously as ‘constitutive’ and ‘enabling’ (Darrier, 1999).
This concept of power is essential to understanding the contribution
of Foucauldian discourse to policy analysis.
All in all, a Foucauldian perspective on discourse is not merely
interested in language, but rather in the functioning of knowledge (cf.
Keller, 2004; Feindt and Oels 2005, p. 164). Certain orders of
knowledge determine societal ‘truth’ at a specific time and space and
evolve over time. In line with the Foucauldian idea of the ubiquity of
power, power is inevitably bound to all types of knowledge
(Biebricher, 2007, p. 225): “We should abandon a whole tradition
that allows us to imagine that knowledge can exist only where the
power relations are suspended and that knowledge can develop only
outside its injunctions, its demands and its interests […]. We should
abandon the belief that power makes mad and that, by the same
token, the renunciation of power is one of the conditions of
knowledge. We should admit rather that power produces knowledge
[…and] that power and knowledge directly imply one another; that
there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a
field of knowledge […]” (Foucault, 1979, p. 27).
Thereby, societal power/knowledge complexes are produced and
disseminated by institutions with which the scientific disciplines,
according to Foucault, can be associated (Fischer, 2003, p. 40; Keller,
2006, p. 126): “Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of
truth: that is, the type of discourse which it accepts and makes function
as true […] In societies like ours, the ‘political economy’ of truth is
characterized by five important traits: ‘Truth’ is centered on the form of
scientific discourse and the institutions, which produce it; it is subject to
constant economic and political incitement […]; it is the object, under
diverse forms, of immense diffusion and consumption (circulating
through apparatuses of education and information […]), it is produced
and transmitted under the control, dominant if not exclusive of a few
great political or economic apparatuses (universities, army, writing, and
media); lastly, it is the issue of a whole political debate and social
confrontation (‘ideological struggles’)” (Foucault, 1999, p. 131 et seq.).
Thus, Foucault does not believe in the Cartesian concept of
continuously increasing rational knowledge. He rejects the idea of
progressing modernization and rationalization processes, which are
seen as parts of a particular Western discourse. He even opposes the
Habermasian utopia of a ‘communicative rationality’ for, as Rotry
trenchantly points out, being “a healing and unifying power which will
do the work once done by God. […] We no longer need [that]” (Rorty,
1989, p. 68). In contrast, Foucault is in favor of a context-based
conception of rationality (Love, 1989, p. 274) with a focused analytical
interest in processes of knowledge change. This conception enables
discourses to be interpreted as ‘strategic situations’: At any moment in
time, a multiplicity of discursive elements is arranged in various
strategies of power (Feindt and Oels 2005, p. 165). Foucault is interested
in the reconstruction of this distribution of discourses, the mechanisms
implied, effects produced, and the changes therein over time.
Hence, Foucault's genealogical interest is oriented towards the
history of discourse. Genealogy examines practices, events, and histories
around which knowledge is constructed as being normal or unaccept-
able. Knowledge production is thereby marked by moments of
problematization and crises during which conflicts and new epistemes
arise (Wong et al., 2007, p. 644, based on Foucault, 1979, 1980).
In other words, as Landwehr (2001) points out, Foucault analyses
the history of knowledge, reality, and truth. Consequently, in the
Foucauldian world, these assumed eternal abstracta become bound to
time and space (cf. Rabinov, 1984, p. 4).
2.2. The role of the subject and discursive strategies
A crucial aspect for the interpretation of Foucault's concept of
discourse is the relationship between individuals and the discourse. In
 G. Winkel / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
his early work, the discourse itself is conceptualized as a powerful unit of
social stability and change. This becomes obvious when looking at his
conception of the author: It is not the individual's contribution to the
discourse through his creativity, ideas, or interests that take center
stage, but his function as an instrument of the discourse (Foucault,
1969). Thus, the individuality of the author becomes exchangeable
(“death of author”, Barthes, 1984). Metaphorically speaking, he
becomes a small fish in the powerful stream of the discourse. Foucault's
analytical interest, accordingly, was not focused on the role of the
individual actor, but concentrated instead on the evolvement of the
discourse, depending on time and space. Hence, as Diaz-Bone (2006, p.
76) points out, conclusions about the interests or cognitions of actors are
ignored by the interpretative analytics from Foucault.
In his later work, Foucault began to take a greater interest in the
discursive strategies and practices between individuals and the
discourse. His concept of subjects “points at the same time to an
actor capable of initiating action and to a being subjected by power, so
that actors are never fully determined by a strategic situation” (Feindt
and Oels, 2005, p. 164 drawing on Foucault, 1982, p. 212). In this
context, subject positions are “contingent and strategic locations
within a specific discursive domain” (Gottweis, 2003, p. 253) while
“actors do not have stable subjects but constantly develop their
subjectivity in a discursive exchange” (Gottweis, 2003, p. 253, relying
on Hajer, 1994, p. 5, and Laclau and Mouffe, 1985, p. 115).
According to Foucault, a large share of all human activities is
invested in controlling the discourse. Society aims to control, select,
organize, and canalize the discourse (Foucault, 2003, p. 11). Thus,
Foucault (2003, pp. 10 et seq.) identified different strategies in order
for this scenario to take place:
▪ Strategies of exclusion ban certain interpretations of reality by
discrediting them in diverse manners. Such strategies include, for
example, the distinction between truth and falsehood or the
societal differentiation between sanity and insanity (Foucault,
2006). They can be reflected in informal as well as formal rules and
respective interdictions on acceptable and unacceptable societal
interpretations and utterances. Foucault identifies the strategies of
exclusion as being external tools that influence the discourse.
▪ Internal strategies are instruments that regulate the flow of the
discourse from ‘inside’. Foucault (2003, pp. 17 et seq.) describes
three important types of internal strategies: commentary, author,
and disciplines. Commentaries are the various recreations of myths
or certain ‘stories’ that belong to the collection of knowledge in a
society. Commentaries have a paradoxical character: on one hand,
they are strongly connected to a society's earlier texts and stories
and reproduce them to a large extent. On the other hand,
commentaries might go a step further and reshape the discourse,
but without ever being able to escape it. Next to the commentary,
the Foucauldian interpretation of author is not the creative
individual, but a function of the discourse itself. What the author
writes and thereby includes or excludes in the creation of his work
is determined by the discourse of his epoch. Finally, disciplines
describe certain rules and customs that order and vest the
discourse in special fields, e.g. medicine or law.
▪ Strategies of limiting access to discourses are obstacles that
utterances have to overcome in order to be able to contribute to
the discourse's evolvement; Foucault (2003, p. 25) cites rituals,
discursive clubs, doctrines, and societal adoptions as examples.
Rituals are certain expressions and language-bound restrictions
that are required in order to be accepted as a meaningful
contributor to the discourse, e.g. technical terms. Discursive clubs
are more or less private associations that exclusively practice a
select and restricted discourse. Doctrines are specific elements of a
discourse that circulate among societies and exclude other
possible doctrines, having potentially serious consequences for
individuals not considering them. Lastly, societal adoptions (in the
Please cite this article as: Winkel, G., Foucault in the forests—A review of the use of ‘Foucauldian’ concepts in forest policy analysis, Forest
Policy and Economics (2011), doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.11.009
3
sense of learning about discourses, e.g. via education) are another
important strategy to limit individuals' access and therefore ability
to actively participating in the development of a discourse.
2.3. The art of governance: governmentality
In his later work, Foucault became increasingly interested in
macro-level aspects of societies and in the ‘big’ questions of societal
and political governance, but never lost sight of the subject's
perspective and the powers affecting it. In this regard, the concept
of governmentality became influential for policy analysis (cf. Table 1).
Governmentality draws on the Foucauldian concept of decentralized,
omnipresent power. Thus, it “can no longer be assumed that the
location of power rests with the sovereign, but instead one needs to
investigate the many technologies and practices, fields of knowledge,
fields of visibility and forms of identity that constitute a ruler with
certain powers. […] This implies that government is not limited to the
state but can be exercised at all levels of society, namely as
government of the self, government of the family and government
of the state” (Oels, 2005, p. 188). Foucault thereby named different
epochs with changing techniques of government, e.g. Europe's
sovereign power in the middle ages, disciplinary power in the 15th
and 16th centuries, and bio-power in the 19th century.
As for the last concept, “biopower” and “biopolitics” particularly
highlight the government's exploration of the individual, physical
needs (e.g. food), and sexuality (Foucault, 1999, p. 176). That is,
biopower brought the former dichotomy to an end, which was
distinguishing “outside history, in its biotechnical environment, and
inside human historicity, penetrated the latter's techniques of
knowledge and power” (Foucault, 1976, p. 146).
2.4. Summary
Table 2 recapitulates the main concepts and elements of Foucaul-
dian thinking in a more consistent Foucauldian ‘perspective’.
3. Foucault in the forest
In the following section, the influence of Foucauldian thinking in
the analysis of forest policy is systematically explored. Accordingly, a
literature review was conducted in 2009, using Scirus, Sage, and
Google Scholar. The combinations “Foucault” and “forest policy” as
well as “Foucault” and “forests” were applied. The literature was
examined on the basis of its relevance. As a rule, only papers
published in peer reviewed journals were incorporated. That is,
monographs or conference papers were not analyzed, with the
Table 1
Analytical framework for the study of governmentality (Oels, 2005, p. 189, based on
Dean, 1999, pp. 30–33).
Analytical category Questions Examples
Fields of visibility What is illuminated, A map of biodiversity
what obscured? with or without native
What problems are population included.
to be solved?
Technical aspect What instruments, Remote sensing of the
procedures and global environment
technologies are used (via satellites)
to enforce authority?
Forms of knowledge Which forms of thought Program rationalities
arise from and inform (lean management)
the activity of governing?
Formation of identities What forms of self are The active job seeker
presupposed by practices
of government? Which
transformations are
sought?
4 G. Winkel / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
Table 2
Dimensions of a Foucauldian perspective
Foucauldian perspective
Epistemological
Rationality There's no eternal truth, only a variety of conflicting
rationalities aiming to order the stream of events.
Against nihilism and relativism therefore only “the
socially and historically conditioned context […]
constitutes the most effective bulwark” (Flyvbjerg,
2000, p. 10).
Sociological
Society Society with ongoing conflicts about truth
Idea of mankind Human interaction is characterized by the rhetorical
use of language and the maintenance of interests.
Greatest fear Disciplinary society with an inviolable system of truth.
Power Power is amorphous, yet omnipresent in discourse;
it restricts and enables actions. Historically, varying
rationalities govern the state and, therefore, society.
Discourse All-embracing concept: Discourse as an omnipresent
wild stream of language and discursive practices that
gives meaning to social events.
Empirical applicability Problems of operationalization;
Clear methodology is lacking;
Conjunction between discourse and individual actors
is rather ambiguous.
Political aspiration Strategic knowledge for oppressed people:
Activating actors by providing enlightening
genealogies: “To criticize the working of institutions
[…] in such a manner that the political violence
which has always exercised itself obscurely through
them will be unmasked, so that one can fight them”
(Foucault in Chomsky and Foucault, 1974, p. 171).
Critical labelling “cynic” and “relativist” (Habermas, 1987, p. 253, 294,
cit. in Flyvbjerg, 1998, p. 224)
exemption of few, particularly relevant book chapters. Ultimately,
thirty-nine papers were selected for in-depth analysis.
For the analysis of the papers, the following dimensions were
selected: author, academic background, research motivation, regional
focuses, topics and time span covered by analysis, disciplinary
approach, frameworks, theoretical approach and Foucauldian con-
cepts used, methods, main findings, and the conclusions drawn by the
scholars on the value of using Foucault for their research. Additionally,
the development of the studies over time was analyzed. In the
following, these categories are used for presenting the results.
3.1. Authors, academic background, and research motivations
Generally, authors that elaborate on Foucauldian ideas within the
context of forest policy analysis have diverse academic backgrounds
and publish in a wide range of journals. As the authors are
predominantly anthropologists, geographers, policy analysts, and
planning scientists, their studies were published mainly ‘outside’ of
established forest science journals.
As for the research motivations, it is notable that—besides a purely
analytical interest—many scholars adopt a critical attitude towards
what they consider to be mainstream knowledge as well as towards
hegemonic institutional powers. As a rule, state and capitalist
institutions are approached with suspicion. For instance, Baldwin
(2003, p. 420) distrustfully notes that “contemporary environmental
discourses are so attractive that they are being consciously appropri-
ated by certain actors (states and capitalists) and used to advance
private interests above those of common concern.” Hence, a notable
part of the authors' motivations for drawing on Foucauldian thought is
the aim to achieve goals beyond a purely analytical analysis, thereby
striving to change political or scientific perspectives. For instance, in
her analysis on prevailing colonial practices in current Australian
forest planning, Porter (2007) calls for a “decolonizing” of forest
planning in Australia; Leach (2008, p. 1793) further points out the
“key role” that researchers might play in generating “a counterpolitics
Please cite this article as: Winkel, G., Foucault in the forests—A review of the use of ‘Foucauldian’ concepts in forest policy analysis, Forest
Policy and Economics (2011), doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.11.009
Table 3
Regional focus of Foucauldian forest policy studies.
Scope of studies Number
Developing tropical countries 22,5
Developed countries (all), of these 14,5
Scandinavia/Canada 7
Australia/NZ 3,5
Others (developed) 4 (2× UK, Belgium, Poland)
Global 2
Sum 39
that help to bring about the required changes.” In most cases,
however, Foucauldian scholars are hesitant to develop anything like a
‘solution’ strategy or a policy concept. Rather, the desire seems to be
to appeal to stakeholders and scientists so they will broaden their
views and take the critical issues that arose from the scholar's analysis
into consideration. For instance, Peluso and Vandergeest's (2001,
p. 766) analysis on the political construction of the colonial forest
states that “[…] we need to “de-forest” our minds to recognize the
contours of what political forests […] have caused history to forget.” In
this manner, scholars are often consistent with what has been said
about Michel Foucault himself in terms of his social and political
engagement (cf. Table 2).
3.2. Regional focus
There are interesting regional preferences among the scholars that
apply Foucauldian thinking in forest policy analysis (Table 3). While
nearly all of the papers were published by scientists employed by
European and North American universities, the majority of scholars
conducted their research in developing countries,1 looking at tropical
forests. As for the work carried out in developed countries, the well
known forest policy conflicts between the forest sector (including the
forestry industry) and environmental groups in the Scandinavian
boreal forests and Canada were addressed in seven studies. Australia
and New Zealand were the focus of research dealing with indigenous
participation (and exclusion) in four studies. In one of these papers
(Rangan and Lane, 2001), an Australian and an Indian case study were
compared (this paper has therefore been counted as a ‘half’ in Table 3
and in the following tables). Finally, the global forest discourse was
analyzed in two papers (Humphreys, 2009; Arts and Buizer, 2009).
3.3. Development over time
There has been a recent boom in the number of publications using
Foucauldian thoughts to analyze forest policy (Table 4). While no such
publications could be identified prior to 1995, more than twenty-five
papers were identified from the last five years as having used Foucault
within the context of forest policy, many of which were published in
the last two years. Despite a possible methodological bias in this
review due to the use of electronic search machines and the resultant
potential under-representation of earlier works, one can still note that
the use of Foucauldian thoughts in the forests has become ‘en vogue’
within the last years.
3.4. Disciplinary approaches
There are two major disciplinary-theoretical ‘paths’ that Foucault
‘went’ into the forest.
1
In the following, I am using categorizations such as ‘developed’ and ‘developing’
countries in order to present my findings in a digestible manner. I am fully aware of
the ‘discursive’ character and potential biases these categories entail. I have tried to
reflect on the consequences where I could, but it is ultimately up to the reader to
deconstruct the suppressive or enabling effects of my own analytical discourse in this
paper.
 G. Winkel / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2011) xxx–xxx 5

Table 4 developed by drawing heavily on the self-classifications used by the

Foucauldian forest policy studies I: Amount of publications/time, disciplinary authors in their papers in cases when multiple interpretations were
approaches, main topics, and time scope.
possible.
Number of studies conducted in… In the end, it is interesting to have a closer look at the regional
…developing …developed Sum distributions of the two major approaches, namely political ecology
countries countries and discourse/policy analysis. While the latter is used in analyses
Publications/time carried out in developing and developed countries and at the global
Before 1995 – – – level, political ecology approaches have, with one exception, only
1995–1999 3 1 4 been applied in developing countries. More precisely, Franklin's
2000–2004 5,5 4,5 10 (2002) work on the Bialowieza forest in Poland is the only paper
2005–2009 14 9 (2 global) 25
Disciplinary approach
drawing on Foucauldian thoughts and classifying itself as contributing
Political ecology 9 1 10 to the political ecology of forests on a, as the author himself points out,
Anthropological/ethnographic 5 2 7 “full European” scale (Franklin, 2002, p. 1460).
Policy analysis/discourse analysis 6,5 8,5 (2 global) 17
Others/Unclear 2 3 5
3.5. Topics and time span
Main topics
International forest policy discourse 2
(Mostly) present national forest policy 5 9 14 National forest policy and its related discourses and major conflicts
conflicts/discourses are the most prominently addressed topics in the Foucauldian
(Mostly) Past (colonial) forest policy 9 – 9 analyses. Ultimately, 23 of the 39 analyzed papers address these
Regional forest management/community 7,5 2,5 10
forestry conflicts
issues. In doing so, there is a striking difference regarding developing
Forest planning 1 3 4 and developed countries: In the latter, the main focus is on the
Time scope analysis of current national forest policy discourses and conflicts. For
Present situation (less than a decade) 2,5 4,5 7 the developing countries, however, past forest policy is much more of
Most recent decades to present (e.g., 6 6 (and 2 14
a central interest. This finding is related to the amount of studies that
1990–2008) global)
Several past decades/centuries and 12 4 16 are analyzing colonial forest policy.
recent times to present (e.g., 1850–2008) Several studies can be cited in this regard including, for instance,
Specific historical period (e.g., 1850–1920) 2 2 the work of Peluso (1995), Peluso and Vandergeest (2001) in South
Sum 22,5 14,5 39 East Asia, Sivaramakrishnan (1995) in India, Ambrose-Oji et al. (2002)
in Cameroon, Sioh (2004) in Malaysia, Grainger and Konteh (2007) in
On one hand, Foucault's ideas have influenced the broad category Sierra Leone, and Porter (2007) in Australia. Porter is a remarkable
of literature that can be subsumed under the concept of ‘post- exception as she is doing her research in Australia, a developed
structural political ecology’. As Bryant (1998) shows in his review country (although it does have a ‘colonial’ history). There is, however,
paper, post-structural political ecology was established from mid- a specific problem in terms of distinguishing between the studies
1990 onward as the way out of a certain paradigmatic crisis of political focusing more on current topics and those concentrating on past
ecology. Political ecology, according to Bryant, had its roots in neo- forest policies due to the strong link often found between colonial
Marxist theories and went through a phase during the political forest policy and actual forest policy practices. In this sense, many
decline of Marxism in the late 1980 s and the following years that was colonial forest policy analyses carried out in developing countries also
characterized by an eclectic range of theoretical sources. In this emphasize the continuing prevalence of colonial practices in the
regard, Foucault's ideas were part of the answer to the call for a “turn postcolonial areas, an aspect that must be taken into account when
to discourse” by Peets and Watts in 1996: “Post structural political interpreting the overview in Table 4 (cf. also Section 3.8).
ecology borrows heavily from Foucauldian methodology to reveal Similarly, the analyses of present forest policies drawing on
how natures and bodily behaviors are drawn into existence through Foucault also frequently incorporate a genealogic view of the past. For
the generation of knowledge, and why such practices should be instance, both Van Herzele's (2006) genealogy of Flemish forest policy
theorized as exercises of power” Baldwin (2003, p. 417). and Berglund's (2001) paper on Finland analyze recent conflicts by
On the other hand, Foucauldian perspectives have entered the embedding them in a systematic analysis of the developments over
analysis of forest policy via the ‘discursive turn’ in policy analysis the past decades. However, the time span covered in these papers is
(Fischer and Forester, 1993; Hajer, 1993, 1997), aiming at “problem- mostly post-WWII, which is opposite of the colonial papers.
atizing what conventional policy analysts take for granted: the Regional forest management, community forestry, and forest
linguistic, identity, and knowledge base of policy making” (Feindt planning are other topics that seem to attract Foucauldian scholars
and Oels, 2005, p. 164). In this regard, it is worth noting that the in forest policy analyses. Again, distinguishing these studies from
discursive turn has been particularly influential in analyses of natural those within other scopes is challenging due to the use, in some
resource and environmental policy (cf. Oels, 2005; Hajer and Versteeg, papers, of local cases to illustrate a broader national or even
2005; Memmler and Winkel, 2007). international forest policy development (e.g., Rangan and Lane,
Besides these two dominant perspectives, analyses of forest policy 2001; Sowerwine, 2004; and Li, 2007).
issues have been conducted against a disciplinary background that The topics selected for research are mirrored in the time spans
might be subsumed under an anthropological research perspective. To covered by the studies. The studies in developing countries are
some degree, those studies are more focused on the ‘micro-politics’ or, generally given a broader time frame as compared to those coming
said differently, on the constraints of individuals in light of coercive from the developed world.
(and enabling) Foucauldian powers.
When interpreting the overview of studies that have been carried 3.6. Frameworks, theoretical approaches, and Foucauldian concepts used
out within these perspectives (see Table 4), one must consider that
the perspectives are closely connected with one another. For instance, Regarding the theoretical frameworks and approaches, the analyzed
a discursive policy analysis approach might be easily combined with a studies can be grouped as follows:
post-structural political ecology analysis; in an analogous manner, an
anthropological approach works well with a political ecology • A first, large group of papers draws solely on Foucauldian concepts
framework. Taking this into account, the overview in Table 4 was such as governmentality in its analyses.

Please cite this article as: Winkel, G., Foucault in the forests—A review of the use of ‘Foucauldian’ concepts in forest policy analysis, Forest
Policy and Economics (2011), doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.11.009
6 G. Winkel / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

• A second group combines Foucauldian ideas with other approaches • a Lacanian psychoanalysis (Sletto, 2008);
and frameworks. • modern ‘governance’ approaches (Stanley et al., 2005); and
• A third group does not use an explicit theoretical framework, but • other discourse approaches, such as those of Hajer and Potter (Van
instead uses Foucauldian thoughts in a manner guiding a descriptive Herzele, 2006; Joutsenvirta, 2009).
analysis.
Even as regards the post-structural placing of Foucault's concepts,
While all of the papers that have been analyzed in this article are
Franklin (2002, p. 1463) argues quite frankly in his ‘unusual’ political
obviously inspired by and reliant on the work of Foucault, some of
ecology paper (cf. Section 3.4) for combining Foucault's concept of
them do not use his thoughts in an elaborate way. A few papers, for
power and discourse with a critical realist research approach.
instance, rely on the Foucauldian idea of discourse and knowledge/
power relation, but do not make use of Foucault's specific discourse
terminology (as introduced in the beginning of this article). Other
3.7. Methods
papers, however, explicitly draw on Foucauldian terminology. Table 5
provides an overview of the use of Foucauldian concepts in all of the
Taking the variety of theoretical approaches applied in the
analyzed papers.
Foucauldian forest policy papers into consideration, it comes as no
It has to again be pointed out that these categories are not easily
surprise that there are also different methodological approaches used
distinguishable as they are already closely related to one another in
in the analyzed papers (cf. overview in Table 5).
Foucault's writing; furthermore, some of the papers combine different
As a general rule and following a post-structural interpretative
concepts in their analyses. For the purpose of lucidity in this paper,
paradigm going along with using Foucault, qualitative methods of
however, only the concept that was most intensively referred to has
social empirical research have been applied. Again, a notable
been considered in Table 5.
difference can be made out with regards to the region in which the
During this process, one interesting difference occurred regarding
studies are conducted: While most Foucault forest papers in
the regional distribution of the cases: Foucault's concept of govern-
developed countries are based on one single method (mostly
mentality is much more frequently used when analyzing forest policy
qualitative interviews or text analysis), the majority of studies
in developing countries. At the same time, policy discourse analysis
conducted in the developing world were done using a mix of different
seems to be more attractive for the analysis of forest policy issues in
methods. It can only be speculated to which degree this choice of
developed countries.
methods relates to the importance of post-structural political ecology
Finally, when regarding the group of papers combining Foucault's
approaches for research in those countries or, alternatively, to
concepts with another theoretical approach, an elusive variety of the
difficulties in gathering data in the developing world, particularly in
latter can be distinguished. For instance, Foucault's concepts are
the case of local level research.
combined with, operationalized, and compared to:
• the Habermasian concept of communicative rationality (Aasetre,
2006); 3.8. Main findings: discourses and governmentality
• different concepts of political ecology, such as the Gramscian
concept of hegemony (Asher and Ojeda, 2009) or, simply put, in a In this chapter, an overview is given of the main results found in
“political ecology context”; the Foucauldian forest policy papers. As it is not possible to
• concepts of other French philosophers, such as Latour (Berglund, summarize each paper given the limits of this article, the idea is to
2001); elaborate on some basic findings that cut across several papers in
• the “complexity theory approach” of Deleuze and Guattari (Bonta, order to identify certain common patterns—in other words, to outline
2005); the Foucauldian forest policy analysis research findings discourse.

Table 5
Foucauldian forest policy studies II: Foucauldian concepts and methods used.

Number of studies conducted in…

…developing countries …developed countries Sum

Foucauldian concepts used

(Just) Knowledge/power idea 2 3 5
Governmentality 10,5 2,5 13
Discourse (actual) 3 5 (2 global) 10
Discourse/Genealogy 4 3 7
Subjectivation/mircro power 2 2
Other (superficial) notions 1 1 2
Methods used
Qualitative interviews 9 5 14
Text analysis 8 5 13
(Participant) Observation 3 2 5
Essayistic-describing 2 4 (1 global) 7
Literature analysis 3 (1 global) 4
Others 3 (1 discussion, 1 “oral history”, 1 (1 discussion) (I comp. 5
1 survey, also employing institutional analysis)
“unusual” techniques such as
mapping and walks in the
forests) (1 comp. institutional
analysis)
Unclear 5 2 7
Total: method mix 11 2 13
Total: single method 6,5 10,5 (2 global) 19
Sum (including unclear papers) 22,5 14,5 39

Please cite this article as: Winkel, G., Foucault in the forests—A review of the use of ‘Foucauldian’ concepts in forest policy analysis, Forest
Policy and Economics (2011), doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.11.009
 G. Winkel / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
From persistent power effects of (tropical) colonial forestry…
As was previously mentioned, Foucauldian thinking has become
very influential in the analysis of colonial forest policies. Thus, analyses
focus on how the colonial states constructed their forests and forestry in
a way that legitimized the exploitation of resources and tended to
neglect the demands of local people. Colonial powers literally created
the forest by applying western sciences, mapping and zoning, including
the designation of reserves (Cleary, 2005; Sivaramakrishnan, 1995),
controlling historical forest uses (shifting cultivation), and reducing
forest diversity for biomass production purposes (Cleary, 2005).
For instance, Peluso and Vandergeest (2001) developed a genealogy
of “political forests” and customary rights in Southeast Asia. They point
out how the colonial forest administration seized the political forests
with the help of demarcation and forest laws. By declaring (race-based)
legal customary rights for the indigenous population, they canalized the
traditional implicit usage rights according to their interests and were
able to install control mechanisms.
Sioh (2004) describes how the Malayan rainforest was constructed
as a space of fear and violence in opposition to the orderly rule of the
state by the British colonial authorities during the Malayan Emergency
in the decade prior to the country's political independence in 1957: “In
contrast to the estates and towns, the forest was the antonym to the
controlled domain of the colony; a marginal space inhabited by those on
the margins of colonial society such as landless or unemployed
immigrants” (Sioh, 2004, p. 732). Thus, achieving control over the
rainforest was a central desire of the colonial power in order to suppress
communist agitation.
In colonial forest policy, the hegemonic discourses for governing
the forests were based on a European cultural background. Porter
(2007), for instance, identifies two discourses that were competing
with each other in Australia's colonial forest history—conservation
rooted in European romanticism and utility rooted in capitalism.
Hence, it is a common idea in many papers to demonstrate how, to
this day, discourses and forest use systems established by the colonial
powers have affected the forest policies from the former colonies.
Therefore, explaining contemporary patterns of forest policy in
developing countries “almost inevitably” requires “a historical perspec-
tive. The intervention of the European and American colonial powers in
the ‘third-world’ is especially crucial to understanding contemporary
patterns of human-environmental interaction and associated power
relations” (Bryant, 1998, p. 85). Colonial forest policy promoted
‘modern’ and ‘rational’ forest management in a discourse of progress,
a picture that prevailed after the colonial period and legitimized the new
national state interventions, e.g. exploitative and centralized forest
management regimes (Scott, 1990; Bryant, 1996; Ambrose-Oji et al.,
2002). Within this context, the prevailing state ownership of forests in
most tropical countries provides evidence for the prolongation of
colonial states’ power techniques (Kubo, 2008).
Even for a developed country such as Australia, Porter (2007)
illustrates how modern forest planning prolongs colonial mecha-
nisms of forest policy, e.g. the production of space through its
definition and the classification of forests, the production of specific
knowledge about it, and the production of appropriate and
meaningful action. These “radical limitations of modern planning
practice” are seen as being “deeply oppressive […] for certain social
and cultural groups” (Porter, 2007, p. 467), particularly as they
exclude native Australians.
Moreover, even ‘modern’ forest management and conservation
debates at the global level can be interpreted as a prolongation of
colonial discourses: “The parallels between the debates in forest
circles in the 1930 s and those of the present-day are striking. It can be
argued that the policies and discourses articulated here prefigured in
many ways contemporary debates about managing the tropical forest
environment (see eg. Bryant, 1993; Thomas, 1998). […] Contempo-
rary post-Rio debates about the tropical forest can be viewed as
reflecting a growing conflict between hegemonic western concep-
Please cite this article as: Winkel, G., Foucault in the forests—A review of the use of ‘Foucauldian’ concepts in forest policy analysis, Forest
Policy and Economics (2011), doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.11.009
7
tions of forest use and the role of local, indigenous knowledge which,
as we have suggested, was all but eliminated as part of the colonial
scientific project” (Cleary, 2005, p. 281).
..and recent boreal forest wars…
A second issue that has attracted the interest of Foucauldian forest
policy analysts is the political battles between different groups,
particularly environmentalists and the forestry industry, in boreal
forests (Berglund, 2001; Baldwin, 2003; Purdon, 2003; Stoddart,
2007; Joutsenvirta, 2009). For instance, drawing on the Foucauldian
knowledge-power notion, Berglund (2001) presented an intriguing
analysis of the conflicts between conservationists and foresters in
Finland. These groups fought the Finnish ‘forest war’ over the proper
management of the forests. As Berglund points out, the forest war
gradually turned “into [a] rather staid competition over facts”
(Berglund, 2001, p. 833), thereby inevitably intertwining knowledge
and truth-construction with political power. Official Finnish forest
policy constructed a picture of well managed Finnish forests as a
symbol of the nation and as a self-made resource to be proud of and
use properly: “Through the 1990 s, state and industry rhetoric
emphasized that if the timber was not harvested, all the hard work
[to build up the Finnish forest with forest management] would go to
waste, or, to paraphrase the chair of the legislative committee
drawing up the Forest Act, timber would be left to rot in the forests”
(ibid., p. 839). On the other side of the battle, conservationists
challenged this perspective by highlighting the ecological functions of
the forest as a habitat or place of undisturbed wilderness that was
being endangered by intensive timber production. Scientific knowl-
edge production and the disciplinary perspective of forest planning
contributed to the construction of the well managed Finnish forests:
“Forestry's position was also strengthened by the avalanche of maps
and graphs produced for public consumption” (ibid., p. 839).
Interestingly, this strategy was adopted by the conservationists, too:
“Like the forestry profession before them, the critics engaged in
extensive mapping exercises of the landscape, only this time putting
the emphasis on species and landscape features long ignored by
industry” (ibid., p. 841). Thus, in the study by Berglund, the
importance of scientifically supported knowledge as an instrument
of power in forest policy conflicts became very obvious (cf. to be
discussed in the later part).
…to general patterns of analysis…
Beside the ‘stories’ about colonial forestry and recent boreal forest
conflicts, there are further interesting patterns in the Foucauldian
forest policy studies that are described in this section.
In some studies, organizations and their specific interests and
strategies for influencing the discourse are put at the center of the
analysis when portraying the evolvement of discourses and competing
discursive constructions of forests and forest policies over time.
Schiellerup (2008) and Van Herzele (2006), for instance, focus on the
positioning of forest services in forest policy discourses. In the latter
study, the story line of the “urban forest” was developed by the Flemish
forest service and can be understood against the background of the
Flemish forestry discourse as a tool to put the forest service in a more
comfortable political position. Schiellerup (2008) analyses how the
British Forestry Commission sought to “reinvent itself” in recent decades
(from hierarchical, rural production forestry toward a democratic, urban
amenity forestry) when core parts of its identity were challenged.
Other studies use the Foucauldian idea of governmentality to
analyze forest policy systems (cf. Tables 1 and 5). As a general rule,
forest governmentality is analyzed with a particular focus on the
exertion of power on different social groups, often taking develop-
ments over time into consideration. For instance, Ambrose-Oji et al.
(2002) analyses how a biopower governmentality was first intro-
duced by the colonial power in Cameroon and was then, in the
8 G. Winkel / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
postcolonial area, taken up by the national state to control and exploit
the forests. Hence, a switch from the “control of the territory as land to
the control of the territory as people” (ibid., p. 151) occurred:
“Authoritative dominance was consolidated through the application
of rational knowledge and systems of bioscience: These explored,
charted, measured, and inventoried the forest […and] the forest's
human populations were mapped, subjected to anthropological
classification and incorporated in administrative management
through the reinterpretation of social tradition and the invention of
chieftaincy…” (ibid., p. 153).
In this context, it is interesting to observe the tensions and frictions
that occur between different levels of governmentality and forest
policy discourses. Some scholars demonstrate how global discourses
regarding sustainable forest management and environmental degra-
dation are used to legitimize state intervention in forest policy and
management or to prevent local forest inhabitants from successfully
becoming empowered (Brosius, 1999; Asher and Ojeda, 2009; Medina
et al., 2009). Thus, the “environmental state has adopted and
normalized this discourse (on participation, the author), and used it
to legitimize the contradictory functions of forest protection and
exploitation demanded by local and global interests” (Ambrose-Oji
et al., 2002, p. 159).
Ambrose-Oji et al. (2002) even point out the development of a
complex system of governmentality in recent decades, responding to
both global environmental and development discourses and the profit
interests of multinational companies. Yet, encouraging techniques
such as community forestry and the developed world's “conservation-
through-participation” (ibid., p. 159) fundamentally serve the
purpose of surveillance (a “Foucauldian panoptican”) in an oppressive
manner: “The environmental state constructs, through the discourse
of participation, a lookout from which it can extends its gaze over the
forests and its natural resources and into the life world of forest and
forest margin communities” (ibid., p. 158). Other scholars provide
similar interpretations of ‘modern’ governance approaches that are
actually meant to encourage civil society's participation, such as co-
management, joint management, and participatory planning. They are
described as sagacious techniques to (re)invent the power of states
being confronted with a lack of resources and access to marginal land
(Baviskar, 2001; Kubo, 2008). Moreover, “the overextension of post-
modern ideas […] could also be characterized as a kind of
cryptocolonial discourse effectively masking the commercial exploi-
tation of knowledge, culture and biological resources” (Gandy, 1996,
p. 34, quoted from Ambrose-Oji et al., 2002, p. 165).
Following the dialectic notion of the Foucauldian power concept,
however, those developments also give new chances to local actors
and ‘marginalized’ groups to resist and develop their own discursive
strategies by adopting and transforming the hegemonic macro-
discourses at the micro-level. For instance, Pulhin and Dressler
(2009) show how local communities can, given certain conditions,
be effective in negotiating or even be resistant to a state policy aiming
at centralizing power under a ‘mask’ of decentralization, thus con-
trolling ‘their own’ timber resources.
…and discursive strategies
There are many discursive strategies analyzed by scholars within
the reviewed literature. These strategies are summarized in the
following section.
A prominent pattern found in many studies is the crucial role of
modern forest sciences in exerting control and power on forests and
their people. Following Scott's notion of how the state “sees” the
forest (1998), modern forest sciences were developed in Germany
in the late 1700 s to simplify the complex biological dynamics of
forests in order to set up and manage forests stands for extraction and
production. During colonization, this European idea of “modern”
(Cleary, 2005) forestry was spread all over the world and served as an
Please cite this article as: Winkel, G., Foucault in the forests—A review of the use of ‘Foucauldian’ concepts in forest policy analysis, Forest
Policy and Economics (2011), doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.11.009
essential discourse for colonial powers: “The introduction of ‘scientific
forestry’ in colonial Asia illustrates this point nicely.[…] The main
purpose of scientific forestry was the promotion of long-term com-
mercial timber production […] central to the imperial economies. But
for this system to succeed, a major transformation in local social and
ecological conditions was required” (Bryant, 1996, p. 87). In doing so,
“a discourse of ‘forestry as progress’ was […] developed in which
‘appropriate’ forest use was defined largely in terms of a commercial
timber extraction, which was asserted to be both ecologically sound
and financially remunerative to the state, while other local activities
were denigrated (the ‘destructive’ shifting cultivator), marginalized
(i.e., ‘minor forest products’) and even criminalized” (ibid., p. 87).
As has already been pointed out, colonial discourses continue to be
influential for current forest policies as does the exclusionary function
of modern, scientific forest management. As Leach (2008, p. 1785)
puts it, scientific forestry and scientific conservation “include the
notion of human action only as disturbance to this forest nature, and
they include particular conceptions of scientific forestry or scientific
biodiversity that define what good forest should be, and which aim to
preserve or reconstitute this. Such ideas often originated with the
scientific theories that circulated amongst networks of imperial and
colonial scientists. They became institutionalized within the routines
of forest bureaucracies, and, in many cases, important to their
revenue-generating capacities.” As a consequence, modern forest
and biodiversity science entails a “particular notion of sustainability,
what is claimed as universal. […] Other Sustainabilities are framed out
of this dominant picture” (Leach, 2008, p. 1791).
Within this context, forest science is frequently described as being
economically biased against its ontological starting point: “This link
between forest science and economic interest, however, is not to be
understood as departmental cooption by industry but, instead, as a sign of
ideological alignment. Forestry is an applied natural science, positivistic
in nature with a strong adherence to measurable and quantifiable
evidence. Claims by forestry to objectivity and truth translate into
scientific determinism and result in the discrediting of any ‘counter-
sciences’ (after Paehlke, 1989), a stance typical of economic rationalism”
(Brueckner, 2007, p. 151). In his Australian case study, “science was
purported to be the backbone” of the analyzed planning processes “and
to replace emotional arguments with facts” (ibid., p. 153). This, according
to Brueckner, eventually turned out to be a crucial weakness regarding
the political acceptance of the whole process.
Another influential discursive strategy that is closely related to the
role of science is the importance of classifications, categories, and
mapping. As Sowerwine (2004, p. 105) puts it, “apparently mundane
land use classifications are in fact powerful mechanisms for state
control.” In this sense, many scholars point at the importance of forest
classification systems and mapping (Peluso, 1995; Berglund, 2001;
Sioh, 2004; Sowerwine, 2004; Wong et al., 2007). Sowerwine (2004),
for instance, describes how Vietnamese forests are made “legible” by
using various mechanisms to survey, classify, map and register forest
land parcels, a set of processes labelled “territorialisation”. Moreover,
Peluso (1995), while highlighting forest maps as being an instrument
with which to exert power in Indonesia, describes the success of
“counter”-mapping by local communities and NGOs as a strategy to
act against the centralized state's resource planning in order to
preserve their own interests and traditional rights. Counter-mapping,
however, also has consequences for social structures as it “freezes” the
traditional usage right system and thus abandons its former flexibility.
Following a Foucauldian notion, disciplines, rituals, and discursive
clubs (Chapter 2) are also referred to as discursive strategies
(Berglund, 2001; Van Herzele, 2006). In the case of the Flemish forest
policy discourse, Van Herzele (2006, p. 681) points out (quoting Van
Miegroet in “De Boskrant”, July 1989) that the “circle of those taking
part in the discourse became extremely limited” in the past because
“under no circumstances, forest management may be consigned to
persons, […] who are not familiar with the forestry methods and who
 G. Winkel / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
do not know the international forestry world”. Thus, to be “allowed to
put in a word about the forest one ought to be an agricultural engineer
in forestry studies and preferably graduated at Ghent University too”
(Van Herzele 2006, p. 81, quoting Hermy; personal communication,
2004).
3.9. Reflections on Foucauldian thinking and challenges
Ultimately, it is interesting to consider how the Foucauldian ideas
and concepts used by the scholars are discussed and reflected in the
papers. When looking at this aspect, it is astonishing that only one of
the 39 analyzed studies critically reflects on a Foucauldian concept it
used. In his case study on forest fire policy in Mexico, Mathews (2005)
criticizes the Foucauldian governmentality concept for not consider-
ing the effects of ‘strategic ignorance’. While the official discourse on
fire suppression is shared in this case at both the national and local
policy levels, it turned out to be a “public secret” that the official fire
suppression policy seldom manifests itself in local practices. Even
being ineffective on the ground, the dominant fire suppression
discourse can serve the forest service by both providing legitimacy
for its existence in influential, urban milieus and by offering a
permanently available reservoir of justification and power for state
intervention at the local level. Thus, Mathews eventually points out
that the link between power and knowledge is more ambiguous than
it might seem from a ‘simple’ interpretation of governmentality.
This lack of direct critical reflections on Foucault's concepts is rather
paradoxical when considering the critical aspirations and self-con-
ceptualizations of many scholars using a Foucauldian approach. In a
more indirect manner, however, one point seemed to have challenged
quite a few of the scholars doing Foucauldian analyses—the relationship
between discourses and social practices. For instance, as Van Herzele
(2006, p. 675, quoting Healey, 1999, p. 28) points out in her genealogy of
the Flemish forest policy discourse, “apparently successful efforts in the
transformation of policy rhetoric may fail to transform policy practices
because either the rhetoric does not reach the routines of practice or the
changes leave contradictory deeper cultural assumptions in place.”
Sletto (2008, p. 1945), in a similar vein as Mathews (2005) and also
in a case study on fire suppression policy, but without explicitly
criticizing Foucault, points out the frictions between discourse and
practices, laconically noting that despite the long presence of the fire
suppression discourse and programs in Venezuela, the indigenous
Permon “burn as before”. Comparable limitations on the effects of
hegemonic discourses are also described by other scholars (Sowerwine,
2004; Pulhin and Dressler, 2009). In this sense, lacking material and
administrative state capacities seem to limit the power of hegemonic
state discourses on the ground, thus making discourse analyses at the
national level less conclusive and, consistent with Foucauldian thinking,
directing research interests at the level of micro-power and individual
constraints. However, this perspective is seldom applied in a consequent
manner in Foucauldian forest policy papers.
4. Conclusions
What can we learn from this review of Foucauldian studies on
forest policy?
Before entering into this discussion, it seems necessary to reflect on the
character of the sample of papers I incorporated in my analysis in order to
avoid overly generalized conclusions: Thus, it must be said that it is likely
that not all of the papers that would have potentially been relevant for this
article could be identified; furthermore, the selection of papers was
certainly biased in terms of the type of publication (peer reviewed
journals) as well as the language (English). Hence, the probably significant
body of non-peer reviewed literature and books that use Foucauldian
concepts and thoughts when analyzing forest policy have been excluded
in this analysis. Moreover, focusing on the key word “Foucault” has
certainly let to a neglect of what one may call ‘Foucault lite’ approaches
Please cite this article as: Winkel, G., Foucault in the forests—A review of the use of ‘Foucauldian’ concepts in forest policy analysis, Forest
Policy and Economics (2011), doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.11.009
9
that draw on similar ideas, but do not name or cite Foucault himself.2 It
would be highly interesting to address these limits by utilizing literature
review techniques that explicitly aim to find these types of publication
(e.g. by using a snowball approach) or new possibilities which arise from
the digital availability of many book publications as well as ‘grey
literature’. However: Taking the limitations of the corpus into account,
the selected papers are believed to provide an insightful impression of
how Foucauldian thinking has influenced the analysis of forest policy.
In this conclusion, the question of what we may have learnt from this
review is addressed by again posing the questions that were raised at
the beginning of this paper: first, how Foucauldian thinking has
influenced the analysis of forest policy and what has been used and
analyzed; second, what has been excluded from the analysis; and, third,
how Foucauldian perspectives can enhance the theoretical knowledge
of forest policy analysis and how it may be used in future analyses.
Concerning the first question, the analysis reveals an impressive
diversity of research areas and topics as well as disciplinary, theoretical,
and methodic approaches that will not be summarized again here. There
are, however, some general patterns concerning almost all of the cases
that can be emphasized by drawing on a list provided by Feindt and Oels
(2005, p. 164) on discourse analysis in environmental policy. Namely, all
of the studies have the following features in common:
▪ a skeptical attitude towards claims of a single rationality and
objective truth and particularly towards central state and capitalist
discourses;
▪ an inclination to regard knowledge as contingent and principally
contestable;
▪ an understanding that language and knowledge need to be ad-
dressed as aspects of power;
▪ an interest in the suppressive effects of dominant types of
language and knowledge; and
▪ an emancipatory motive and interest in broadening the available
knowledge base and democratizing policy making.
The second question regarding aspects that have been neglected in
Foucauldian forest policy studies (which I actually consider to be a
real Foucauldian one) shall be discussed in more detail here.
First, on the subject of the regional distribution of case studies that
were analyzed, I find the focus of governmentality/political ecology
studies on forest policy in developing countries worth reflecting on.
This holds especially true when this finding is compared to the
regional distribution of case studies using other approaches in forest
policy analyses (cf. for the Advocacy Coalition Framework: Sotirov
and Memmler in this special issue). Stanley et al. (2005, p. 686), when
noting a similar regional bias with regards to political ecology, point
out that “critical studies of the environment and, more specifically,
environmental governance have tended to focus on the environment
of developing countries, as issues of environmental conservation and
justice are felt more acutely, so it is argued, in these areas (Wilson and
Bryant, 1997).” Adopting a particular view of forest policy, they argue
that “political ecology and similar theories stemming from Marxist
approaches to nature have sought to investigate highly politicised
forestry governance […]. In Europe the greatest body of work comes
from the case studies in Nordic countries, whose pre-eminent position
derives undoubtedly from what Rannikko (1999) terms their
‘particularly abundant forest resources’” (ibid., p. 686).
While this is likely to provide a good explanation for both the peak in
developing countries and the secondary boreal forest foci, I would like to
even go one step further in my interpretation. My argument is that it
seems as though scholars have something like their own hegemonic
discourse in which issues and regions are felt to be adequately
2
Having said this, it is important to note that the semi-quantitative approach I have
chosen regarding the tables in the results chapter must not be misinterpreted in the
sense of statistical representativity, but instead recognized for their sole aim of
illustrating the findings of the review in a more transparent manner for the reader.
10 G. Winkel / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
addressed by a Foucauldian forest policy analysis. In other words,
colonial forest policies pose a plausible example for ‘problematic’ and
oppressive forest governance and, consequently, serve as a well
accepted ‘playground’ for Foucauldian analysts. On the other hand, I
find it striking that I could not find any in-depth Foucauldian studies on,
for instance, forest policy in the United States (from recent times or the
past) or in Germany (which is surprising given that the German
approach to scientific forestry is pointed to as being a role model for
colonial forestry in many countries (Scott, 1998)). This is a paradox:
While a notable share of scholars is at least associated with American
universities, these individuals are mostly conducting their critical
research in the developing world. Moreover, they are frequently
deconstructing the oppressive effects of hegemonic Western discourses
in those countries, while being silent about the effects of those
discourses on the forests and people in the countries in which those
discourses originated. To me, this regional exclusion of developed
countries—with the notable exception of indigenous issues in Australia/
New Zealand and the well known boreal forest conflicts—counteracts
Foucault's interest in the powerful (oppressive and enabling) forces of
the ‘normal’ daily life discourses in Western countries.
This is not only to say that I would find it challenging to formulate
research questions as to how current or past forest governmentalities
(often also closely related to state and capitalists systems of forest use)
‘oppress’ a diversity of forest related societal demands by maintaining a
hegemonic and science-based discourse on sustainable forest manage-
ment in the developed world. In this context, I find the results of the only
study that I was able to locate comparing the forest policy of a developed
country (Australia) and a developing country (India) revealing: When
analyzed with regards to language, the role of state, and the
accommodation of indigenous groups, the Australian regional forest
assessments turned out to be less encouraging and participatory than
India's joint forest management (Rangan and Lane, 2001).
Moreover, Foucauldian forest policy analyses should try to unmask
the subversive and gradual forces of discursive power and the exclusion
of those societal groups that have, until now, been neglected by scholars.
For instance, I would find it interesting to not only consider the
suppression of local indigenous people in the colonized/developing
world, but also to investigate the discursive power effects of an urbanized
society and a capitalist forest sector discourse on forest owners, workers,
and other forest users in the developed world. Furthermore, it may also
be challenging to analyze the suppressive and exclusionary as well as
enabling effects of forest governmentalities and discourses which are
explicitly different than the Western state and capitalist discourses, such
as traditional forest use systems all over the world.
In this regard, it seems promising to practice much more comparative
research designs involving both developed and developing countries'
forest policies. Thus, in contrast to the current situation, even researchers
from the developing world could be invited to ‘unmask’ the powerful
effects of Western world forest policy discourse in developed countries.
In summary, my claim is that a Foucauldian forest policy analysis
should pay heed to its Foucauldian appeal and thus be eager to escape
a little from large hegemonic narratives on colonial forestry and the
boreal forest conflicts. Let me not be mistaken: More than a decade of
gaining Foucauldian insights about forest policies has produced an
invaluable knowledge reservoir. That being said, the time seems right
to more systematically address those regions, topics, and discourses
that have been excluded in the current scholars' discourse.
In this regard, another interesting discovery in this review is that a
striking majority of all Foucauldian forest policy analyses were
conducted by scholars associated with research institutions ‘outside’
of the forest sector (such as geography and anthropology) and were not
published in scientific forestry journals (such as Forest Policies and
Economics). It can only be speculated whether this finding is merely a
function of the academic training of the scientific staff in forest schools
or if it points to a conscious reluctance of forest policy analysts (and the
related funding agencies) with regard to these critical approaches.
Please cite this article as: Winkel, G., Foucault in the forests—A review of the use of ‘Foucauldian’ concepts in forest policy analysis, Forest
Policy and Economics (2011), doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.11.009
This finding leads me, however, to the final question that has been
posed: how Foucauldian perspectives can enhance the theoretical
knowledge of forest policy analysis and how it may be used in future
analyses. First of all, taking into account the findings of this review, it
has to be said that Foucault's thoughts are more of a philosophical
‘world view’ than an applicable theory or framework of analysis. Thus,
Foucault offers a challenging meta-theoretical perspective for scho-
lars, but the high level of abstraction together with his ambiguous
methodology leaves room for a huge variety of theoretical applica-
tions and research practices. As Dean (1999, p. 7) puts it, referring to
the most frequently adopted concept of governmentality, it is “a
mixed substance and one that only works when alloyed with others”;
Stanley et al. (2005, p. 681) even considers governmentality to be a
“telos (utopia) of government”, while governance theory and research
would address the “real” situation.
In this sense, Foucault offers a thought provoking perspective, but
leaves it to the scholar to make use of the perspective by combining it
with or reducing it to an applicable theoretical framework and by
operationalizing it with adequate methods. Having this in mind,
neither the diversity of approaches found in this review, nor the lack
of concrete criticism towards Foucauldian thoughts is surprising:
Understood as a major theoretical worldview, the Foucauldian
concepts themselves literally escape from the critical view of
Foucauldian analysts (cf. Section 3.9) who, in this sense, inevitably
become limited and suppressed themselves by the Foucauldian
discourse.
How can we avoid this suppressive Foucauldian effect when being
‘Foucauldian’? While the answer also fundamentally depends on the
degree to which one shares the Foucauldian idea of the “death of the
author”, I consider it worthwhile to have a look at the methodical and
theoretical boundaries that have been established within the
Foucauldian perspective on forest policy analysis.
There are methodological and theoretical exclusions to be found.
Concerning the first, the most notable is the avoidance of any
quantitative analytics in all of the studies analyzed. This is, of course,
less surprising considering the post-structural appeal of Foucault's
concepts and their strong interpretative roots. Taking a pragmatic
point of view, however, I find no reason why it should not be
promising to at least integrate quantitative elements such as e.g.
counting key statements or references to certain discourses over time,
and combining them with the qualitative set of methods which is
already being used in the studies.
Even more challenging things could be done regarding theories.
Two major problems occur in many Foucauldian forest policy studies,
and actually in Foucault's work itself: First, the striking question of the
degree to which discourses and governmentality matter given
findings that they are sometimes contradicted by resistant social
behaviour or, more broadly, a ‘material’ reality. Second, there is the
question of the amount of flexibility existing for individual agency
within the Foucauldian discourse. Concerning the first question, the
combination of research guided by Foucauldian perspectives and
approaches that share a radically distinct theoretical discourse and, as
such, concentrate on, e.g. the analysis of material factors, would be
really interesting; this is in cases in which both perspectives are
applied to the same research problem/forest policy arena.
As for the second issue, I consider it essential for forest policy
analysis to concentrate more on subjects such as ‘discursive elites’,
marginalized, and ‘mainstream’ groups, and to focus on the agency of
the elites, asking how they produce, influence, interact with, and are
constrained by hegemonic or counter-hegemonic knowledge orders.
Eventually, subjects could also be systematized according to the
degree of constraint and individual discursive power. In this sense,
combining actor-centered analysis with a Foucauldian concept of
discourse might be an interesting path to follow.
Putting all of these ideas together, future Foucauldian studies on
forest policy might consider the following suggestions:
 G. Winkel / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
– be flexible in combining different methods and also consider
integrating quantitative elements in the analysis;
– use comparative perspectives, particularly involving different cul-
tural backgrounds and developing as well as developed countries;
– address the big question of “does discourse matter?” by combining
a Foucauldian design with a distinct theoretical discourse in one
research consortium, such as rational choice and the analysis of
material goods, and dealing with the same issue;
– focus more on the role of subjects in terms of both constrained and
marginalized groups that have been overlooked in existing works
as well as power exerting, discursive elites; and
– be an active Foucauldian in the sense that one tries to work at the
edge of the Foucauldian forest policy research discursive ‘stream’
in order to let it flow into regions, topics, and suppressions that
have not yet been addressed and detected.
Finally, having brought Foucault into the forest, one might ask
whether there is a way for him to leave. This is difficult to guess. While
the current boom of letting Foucault in personam inspire forest policy
analysis will probably abate one day, his main ideas and, more
generally, the post-structural perspective will most likely not
disappear. This paper has shown that there is still so much territory
to be explored by using a Foucauldian discourse, be it with developed
countries, silent marginalized groups and elites, or forest schools. In
this sense, the Foucauldian exploration of forest policy has just begun.
Acknowledgements
I warmly thank Michael Memmler for his contributions to an
earlier version of this paper and Metodi Sotirov for his comments on a
draft version. Furthermore, I would like to thank the policy theory
working group that compiled this special issue, and Daniela
Kleinschmit in particular, for the challenging—and sometimes even
fundamental—discussions on the topic, as well as two anonymous
reviewers for their comments.
References
Aasetre, J., 2006. Perceptions of communication in Norwegian forest management.
Forest Policy and Economics 8, 81–92.
Ambrose-Oji, B., Allmark, T., Buckley, P., Clements, B., Woodgate, G., 2002. The
environmental state and the forest: of lookouts, lumberjacks, leopards, and losers.
In: Mol, A.P.J., Buttel, F. (Eds.), The Environmental State Under Pressure: Research
in Social Problems and Public Policy, 10, pp. 149–170.
Arts, B., Buizer, M., 2009. Forests, discourses, institutions. A discursive-institutional
analysis of global forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics 11 (5–6), 340–347.
Asher, K., Ojeda, D., 2009. Producing nature and making the state: Ordenamiento
territorial in the Pacific lowlands of Colombia. Geoforum 40, 292–302.
Baldwin, A., 2003. The nature of the boreal forest: governmentality and forest-nature.
Space and Culture 6, 415–428.
Barthes, R., 1984. Le bruissement de la langue. Ed. du Seuil, Paris.
Baviskar, A., 2001. Forest management as political practice: Indian experiences with the
accommodation of multiple interests. International Journal of Agricultural Resources,
Governance and Ecology 1 (3–4), 243–263.
Berglund, E., 2001. Facts, beliefs and biases: perspectives on forest conservation in
Finland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44, 833–849.
Biebricher, T., 2007. Habermas and Foucault: deliberative democracy and strategic state
analysis. Contemporary Political Theory 6, 218–245.
Bonta, M., 2005. Becoming-forest, becoming-local: transformations of a protected area
in Honduras. In: Kingsbury, P., Sletto, B. (Eds.), Critical Geographies of the Caribbean
and Latin America: Geoforum, 36, pp. 95–112.
Brosius, J.P., 1999. Green dots, pink hearts: displacing politics from the Malaysian rain
forest. American Anthropologist 101 (1), 36–57.
Brueckner, M., 2007. The Western Australian Regional Forest Agreement: economic
rationalism and the normalisation of political closure. Australian Journal of Public
Administration 66 (2), 148–158.
Bryant, R., 1993. Forest problems in colonial Burma: historical variations on contem-
porary themes. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 3, 122–137.
Bryant, R.L., 1996. Romancing colonial forestry: the discourse of ‘forestry as progress’ in
British Burma. The Geographical Journal 162 (2), 169–178.
Bryant, R.L., 1998. Power, knowledge and political ecology in the third world: a review.
Progress in Physical Geography 22 (1), 79–94.
Chomsky, N., Foucault, M., 1974. Human nature: justice versus power. In: Elders, F. (Ed.),
Reflexive Water: The basic concerns of mankind. Souvernier Press, London, pp. 135–197.
Please cite this article as: Winkel, G., Foucault in the forests—A review of the use of ‘Foucauldian’ concepts in forest policy analysis, Forest
Policy and Economics (2011), doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.11.009
11
Cleary, M., 2005. Managing the forest in colonial Indochina. c. 1900–1940. Modern
Asian Studies 39 (2), 257–283.
Darrier, M., 1999. Foucault and the environment. An introduction. In: Darrier, M. (Ed.),
Discourses of the Environment. Routlegde, London, pp. 1–34.
Dean, M., 1999. Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. Sage Publications,
London.
Diaz-Bone, R., 2006. Die interpretative Analytik als methodologische Position. In:
Kerchner, B., Schneider, S. (Eds.), Foucault: Diskursanalyse der Politik—Eine
Einführung. VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 68–84.
Feindt, P.H., Oels, A., 2005. Does discourse matter? Discourse analysis in environmental
policy making. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 7 (3), 161–173.
Fischer, F., 2003. Reframing Public Policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Fischer, F., Forester, J., 1993. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning.
Duke University Press, Durham.
Flyvbjerg, B., 1998. Habermas and Foucault: thinkers for civil society. British Journal of
Sociology 49, 210–233.
Flyvbjerg, B., 2000. Ideal Theory, Real Rationality: Habermas versus Foucault and
Nietzsche. Paper for the PSA's 50th Annual Conference, The Challenges for
Democracy in the 21st Century, London School of Economics and Political Science,
10–13 April 2000URL: http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/IdealTheory.pdf2000.
Foucault, M., 1969. Was ist ein Autor? In: Jannidis, F., Lauer, G., Martinez, M., Winko, S.
(Eds.), Texte zur Theorie der Autorschaft. Reclam, Stuttgart, pp. 198–232.
Foucault, M., 1976. The History of Sexuality. Panthenon Books, New York.
Foucault, M., 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage, New York.
Foucault, M., 1980. Eye of power. In: Gordon, C. (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected
Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977. Pantheon, New York.
Foucault, M., 1982. Afterword: the subject in power. In: Dreyfus, H.L., Rabinow, P.
(Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 208–225.
Foucault, M., 1999. Verteidigung der Gesellschaft. Vorlesungen am Collège de France
(1975–76). Translation: Michaela Ott. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M.
Foucault, M., 2003. Die Ordnung des Diskurses. Fischer, Frankfurt/M.
Foucault, M., 2006. History of Madness. Routledge, London.
Franklin, S., 2002. Bialowieza Forest, Poland: representation, myth, and the politics of
dispossession. Environment and Planning 34, 1459–1485.
Gandy, M., 1996. Crumbling land: the postmodern debate and the analysis of
environmental problems. Progress in Human Geography 20, 23–40.
Gottweis, H., 2003. Theoretical strategies of poststructuralist policy analysis: towards
an analytics of government. In: Hajer, M., Wagenaar, H. (Eds.), Deliberative Policy
Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 247–265.
Grainger, A., Konteh, W., 2007. Autonomy, ambiguity and symbolism in African politics:
the development of forest policy in Sierra Leone. Land Use Policy 24, 42–61.
Habermas, J., 1987. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Hajer, M., 1993. Discourse coalitions and the institutionalizations of practice: the case of
acid rain in Great Britain. In: Fischer, F., Forester, J. (Eds.), The Argumentative Turn
in Policy Analysis and Planning. Duke University Press, Durham, pp. 43–76.
Hajer, M., 1994. Managing the metaphors. Global Environmental Constructs and the Missing
Public Domains. Paper prepared for the workshop ‘Science Studies, International
Relations and the Global Environment’, Cornell University, 16–18 September.
Hajer, M., 1997. The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Hajer, M., Versteeg, W., 2005. A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics.
Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 7 (3), 175–184.
Humphreys, D., 2009. Discourse as ideology: Neoliberalism and the limits of
international forest policy. Forest Policies and Economics 11 (5–6), 319–325.
Joutsenvirta, M., 2009. A language perspective to environmental management and
corporate responsibility. Business Strategies and the Environment 18 (4), 207–276.
Keller, R., 2004. Diskursforschung. VS-Verlag, Wiesbaden.
Keller, R., 2006. Wissenssoziologische Diskursanalyse. In: Keller, R., Hirseland, A.,
Schneider, W., Viehöver, W. (Eds.), Handbuch Sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursa-
nalyse: Bd. 1 Theorien und Methoden. Leske + Budrich, Opladen, pp. 115–146.
Keller, R., 2007. Diskurse und Dispositive analysieren. Die Wissensoziologische Diskursa-
nalyse als Beitrag zu einer wissensanalytischen Pofilierung der Diskursforschung.
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 8 (2) Art. 19.
Kubo, H., 2008. Diffusion of policy discourse into rural spheres through co-management of
state forestlands: two cases from West Java, Indonesia. Environmental Management
42, 80–92.
Laclau, E., Mouffe, C., 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Toward a Radical
Democratic Politics. Verso, London.
Landwehr, A., 2001. Geschichte des Sagbaren. Einführung in die historische Diskursa-
nalyse. Diskord, Tübingen.
Landwehr, A., 2006. Diskursgeschichte als Geschichte des Politischen. In: Kerchner, B.,
Schneider, S. (Eds.), Foucault: Diskursanalyse der Politik—Eine Einführung. VS-
Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 104–122.
Leach, M., 2008. Pathways to sustainability in the forest? Misunderstood dynamics and
the negotiation of knowledge, power, and policy. Environment and Planning A 40,
1783–1795.
Li, T., 2007. Practices of assemblage and community forest management. Economy and
Society 36 (2), 263–293.
Love, N., 1989. Foucault and Habermas on. Polity 23, 269–293.
Mathews, A., 2005. Power/knowledge, power/ignorance: forest fires and the state of
Mexico. Human Ecology 33, 795–819.
Medina, G., Pokorny, B., Weigelt, J., 2009. The power of discourse: hard lessons for traditional
forest communities in the Amazon. Forest Policy and Economics 11 (5–6), 309–312.
Memmler, M., Winkel, G., 2007. Argumentative Politikberatung in der Naturschutzpo-
litik. In: Krott, M., Suda, M. (Eds.), Macht Wissenschaft Politik? Erfahrungen aus der
12 G. Winkel / Forest Policy and Economics xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
wissenschaftlichen Beratung im Politikfeld Wald und Umwelt. VS-Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 203–244.
Oels, A., 2005. Rendering climate change governable: from biopower to advanced
liberal government? Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 7, 185–207.
Paehlke, R., 1989. Environmentalism and the Future of Progressive Politics. Yale
University Press, New Haven.
Peet, R., Watts, M., 1996. Liberation ecology: development, sustainability, and
environment in an age of market triumphalism. In: Peet, R., Watts, M. (Eds.),
Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements. Routledge,
London, pp. 1–45.
Peluso, N.L., 1995. Whose woods are these? Territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia.
Antipode 274, 383–406.
Peluso, N.L., Vandergeest, P., 2001. Genealogies of the political forest and customary
rights in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. The Journal of Asian Studies 60,
761–812.
Porter, L., 2007. Producing forests. A colonial genealogy of environmental planning in
Victoria, Australia. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26, 466–477.
Pulhin, J.M., Dressler, W.H., 2009. People, power and timber: the politics of community-
based forest management. Journal of Environmental Management 91 (1), 206–214.
Purdon, M., 2003. The nature of ecosystem management: postmodernism and plurality
in the sustainable management of the boreal forest. Environmental Science and
Policy 6, 377–388.
Rabinov, P., 1984. The Foucault Reader. Pantheon, New York.
Rangan, H., Lane, M.B., 2001. Indigenous peoples and forest management: comparative
analysis of institutional approaches in Australia and India. Society and Natural
Resources 14, 145–160.
Rannikko, P., 1999. Combining social and ecological sustainability in the Nordic forest
periphery. Sociologia Ruralis 39, 394–410.
Reisigl, M., 2006. Sprachkritische Beobachtungen zu Foucaults Diskursanalyse. In:
Kerchner, B., Schneider, S. (Eds.), Foucault: Diskursanalyse der Politik—Eine
Einführung. VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 85–103.
Rorty, R., 1989. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Please cite this article as: Winkel, G., Foucault in the forests—A review of the use of ‘Foucauldian’ concepts in forest policy analysis, Forest
Policy and Economics (2011), doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.11.009
Schiellerup, P., 2008. Insider perspectives on institutional change in contemporary
British forestry: identity and environmental governance. Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy 26, 1061–1076.
Scott, J.C., 1990. Domination and the Art of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. Yale University
Press, New Haven.
Scott, J.C., 1998. Seeing like a state. How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human
Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Sioh, M., 2004. An ecology of postcoloniality: disciplining nature and society in Malaya,
1948–1957. Journal of Historical Geography 30, 729–746.
Sivaramakrishnan, K., 1995. Colonialism and forestry in India: imagine the past in
present policy. Comparative Studies in Society and History 37, 3–40.
Sletto, B., 2008. The Knowledge that Counts: Institutional Identities, Policy Science, and
the Conflict over Fire Management in the Gran Sabana, Venezuela. World
Development 36 (10), 1938–1955.
Sowerwine, J.C., 2004. Territorialisation and the politics of highland landscapes in
Vietnam: negotiating property relations in policy, meaning and practice.
Conservation and Society 2 (1), 97–136.
Stanley, G.K., Marsden, T.K., Milbourne, P., 2005. Governance, rurality, and nature:
exploring emerging discourses of state forestry in Britain. Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy 23, 679–695.
Stoddart, M.C.J., 2007. ‘British Columbia is open for business’: environmental justice and
working forest news in the Vancouver Sun. Local Environment 12 (6), 663–674.
Thomas, F., 1998. Ecologie et gestion forestière dans l'Indochine française. Revue
française d'histoire d'outre mer 319, 59–86.
Van Herzele, A., 2006. A forest for each city and town: story lines in the policy debate for
urban forests in Flanders. Urban Studies 43 (3), 673–696.
Wilson, G.A., Bryant, R.L., 1997. Environmental Management: New Directions for the
21st Century. UCL Press, London.
Wong, T., Delang, C.O., Schmidt-Vogt, D., 2007. What is a forest? Competing meanings
and the politics of forest classification in Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary,
Thailand. Geoforum 38, 643–654.