-Dr Sam Staddon, University of Edinburgh, UK
(28/04/24)
I think I’m a little obsessed with love. Before bringing our Masters students from the UK here to Nepal, I make them read this wonderful paper by Guasco (2022) about practicing geographical research through an ethic of ‘access as love’ (to counter/refuse ‘access as violence’, as typified historically by colonial-masculinist ‘explorers’). Writing on last year’s student trip to Nepal in my blog for SIAS, I reflected on how SIAS staff embody this praxis of access as love and considered what we could learn from them. And now I’m reading the feminist writer and cultural critic Bell Hooks’ (2001) brilliant book All About Love. New Visions. And I love it 😊 Here I wish to dig a little deeper into what centring love might mean for our research, teaching, and learning practices, and what that might do for our ultimate goal of promoting environmental and social justice in all that we do.
Hooks highlights that most of us are embarrassed to talk of love, that when we do it is typically in the context of feelings and emotions, and that many are scared that showing it will be taken as a sign of weakness and irrationality. And yet emotions and expressions of love are such important aspects of all our lives – including on student trips, in which they are central to the pedagogical process and the trip’s critical political potential (as we have explored in relation to past student trips to Nepal). Emotions and expressions of love have been a particularly big feature of this year’s trip! Travelling to Gandruk (the original homestay village of the Annapurna Conservation Area Programme) for example, involved two hours of incredibly bumpy bus ride, zigzagging up 1,000m of hairpins and roads set on the edge of the Mid-Hills of Nepal. For some students this journey was like no other they had been on before, some were scared and screaming, and others messaged home “If I die on this road and don’t see you again Mom, I love you!”. They cared for each other though, reassuring those scared that it would be OK, and passing tissues to those crying. Of course, we made it safely back down the next day and were able to see the funny side of it afterward.
Hooks seeks to shift this perception of love as not only about feelings, or indeed as not only about care however, asserting that rather than thinking about love as a noun (i.e. a thing), we should be using love as a verb (i.e. an action). Whilst giving care and affection are significant acts of love, Hooks pushes us even further, writing that:
“Affection is only one ingredient of love. To truly love we must learn to mix various ingredients – care, affection, recognition, respect, commitment, and trust, as well as honest and open communication” (p.5).
It has been incredibly heartening to see just how much such expressions and actions of love have featured in our trip, both from our students and SIAS colleagues. In deliberate attempts to centre those who are marginalised in the context of Nepal’s environment and development challenges, students have been asking considerate and respectful questions to the speakers on the trip, seeking to recognise and understand subtle processes of inequality and the operation of power as it plays out in community forests, in conservation programmes, and professional workplaces. In efforts to make visible the labour that so often goes unnoticed in making research and teaching actually happen, SIAS staff highlighted the work of colleagues so that it could be recognised and respected by students. For instance, that involved in navigating the bureaucracy of obtaining visitor permits to conservation areas (which in theory should be a quick task, but in reality, it is not). Whilst perhaps not typically considered in relation to love, I view these actions as important ingredients in the practice of love, and through them, see the relevance of love in learning about global environmental and social justice challenges. I do so, as Hooks reminds us that love is not only something experienced between individuals or for personal satisfaction, but rather has significance at the societal level, and is something that should be politicised, as it stands directly against patriarchy, racism, and all other forms of domination and discrimination.
Hooks draws our attention to another facet of love, that of truth-telling, arguing that to know love, we must tell the truth to ourselves and to others. Whilst this clearly aligns with ‘trust and honest and open communication’ being amongst the necessary ingredients of love, I admit to finding this aspect of love harder to get to grips with; however, reflecting on the trip I think I have come to understand it better. During our trip, students engaged in small group research projects which involved an afternoon of data collection, mostly through focus group discussions with members of communities or institutions involved in a range of environmental issues – SIAS had set up these opportunities in advance but the students were to lead the process on the day. The student group I supervised were researching the issue of ‘human-wildlife conflict’ in the form of crop-raiding by monkeys- one of the most pressing challenges for rural subsistence farmers across the country. The group successfully conducted one focus group discussion with members of local forestry and wildlife institutions – all of whom were men and who seemed to enjoy the experience, providing freely their time to share their opinions and perspectives. The group then moved on to a second focus group discussion, this time with ‘local farmers’, all of whom were women. This focus group proceeded in a significantly different way – whilst the women were welcoming and friendly, and responded to the students’ questions with their insights and experiences, after some time they became agitated, and as thunder rumbled above were looking at the sky, realising they would need to collect the grass they had been doing previously before the rains came. One woman took the opportunity to offer her thoughts “You have kept us here to discuss, but we are not getting anything in return” and requested that the discussion be brought to a close. The students managed this impromptu ending well, and whilst the women were dissatisfied in some ways, they sat and took photos with the students, and pictures taken on a student’s polaroid camera were given to the women, who seemed pleased with this small gift.
Much of the post-fieldwork reflection of course focused on the statement and actions of the women, leading to lengthy discussions on the issue of ‘incentives’ in research – an issue, as highlighted by our SIAS colleague, that has been around for decades and which is equally relevant in environment and development initiatives more broadly. Drawing on their own experiences, our SIAS colleague tried to reassure the students but also to teach them about the complex nature of engaging in research and initiatives, by sharing that “we all want to see happy faces in our focus group discussions, but it’s not that easy”. They went on to share that at times they do give incentives in such research whilst at other times they do not, and that in this particular situation, had we given financial incentives it would have made the work of a local social mobiliser (through whom the research opportunities were arranged) much harder in future, as they also relied on working with these respondents but did not have access to funds as we did. This encouraged the students to see beyond their ‘own’ focus group experience and of wanting to see ‘happy faces’ there, to recognise and respect the deep challenges of engaging through research with those who are often most marginalised in environment and development spheres. Whilst back in the UK they read a lot about centring the voices of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) and those who are intersectionally vulnerable (such as the economically poor dalit women in our focus group), the practice is not so easy. It is however, revealing and insightful and an incredibly important learning opportunity. Hooks writes that “when we hear another person’s thoughts, beliefs, and feelings, it is more difficult to project onto them our perceptions of who they are. It is harder to be manipulative” (p.49). Whilst the men’s focus group discussion had in some senses given the students just what they wanted – an eager and happy sharing of perspectives – by experiencing the women not appeasing up, not lying to us, but rather telling their own truths, the students came to learn more deeply. They came to recognise the women’s agency and also their agenda’s (they had shared that they wanted long-term solutions to the wildlife they experienced as pests, and despaired of the government or local institutions in being able to offer those solutions) and thus are now better placed to work to support such people in their future careers, and to avoid misperceptions of or inadvertently manipulating their lives and needs. Whilst this form of ‘tough love’ can be hard to experience, Hooks asserts that “To be loving we willingly hear each other’s truth and, most importantly, we affirm the value of truth-telling. Lies may make people feel better, but they do not help them to know love” (p.49). I honour and respect the students who went through this learning, and trust that despite the discomfort that it caused, they value the experience as one that brings them closer to learning through love.
According to Hooks, all great movements for social justice have emphasised and depended upon a ‘love ethic’, with expressions and actions of love standing as antithetical to patriarchy, racism, and other forms of domination. Understanding love as action (rather than feeling), she says, “automatically assumes accountability and responsibility” (p.13), and thus it moves people to work for others, in support of their betterment and freedoms. When it comes to learning about the world; and its people, places, and politics, we are typically taught however to believe that the mind, rather than the heart, is the seat of knowledge, and as a consequence, Hooks bemoans that ‘schools for love’ do not exist. There are so many ways in which this trip has surfaced the relevance and importance of learning love and love as learning; caring for others by holding their hands whilst walking down steep steps, showing respect and seeking to recognise others and their challenges through humility and careful questioning, and honest and truthful self-reflection on unearned privileges. Whilst the trip does not provide any ‘easy answers’ or ‘solutions’ to navigate working in the environment and development sector, it does – in my view – offer a form of ‘school for love’ for those of us wishing to practice love to begin to address global environmental and social justice challenges.
A ‘school for love’ teaches us that one way to practice love is “by choosing to work with individuals we admire and respect; by committing to give our all to relationships” (p.87). As staff from the University of Edinburgh, we hugely admire and respect our SIAS colleagues, not only for their commitments to justice and their care for everyone involved in the trip, but also for reminding us that dancing and laughing together builds bonds and friendships that are at the heart of all genuine collaborations. We thus commit ourselves to maintain a ‘relationship of constancy’ (p.51) with SIAS over the years to come, and I’m already looking forward to next year’s trip. I know I’m going to love it.
