“Only the orangutans get a life jacket”

In an era of mass extinction, who gets a life jacket, is left to drown or swim—and on what basis? This article addresses these questions by analyzing how tropes and practices responsibility are variously enacted, reworked, contested, refused across the global nexus orangutan conservation. Drawing multisited, collaborative ethnography, we trace mutually constitutive relation between multiple figures commons imaginaries at different nodes conservation—from environmental activism in Global North NGO-villager encounters rural Borneo. so doing, “uncommon” international conservation's encompassing planetary imaginaries, showing dominant portrayals as translated fragmented settings. We further contemplate analytic might bring ongoing discussions about “commoning” epoch which conservation increasingly embedded: Anthropocene. [commons, uncommoning, responsibility, conservation, Anthropocene, Borneo, Indonesia] Di kepunahan massal, siapa yang mendapatkan pelampung, ditinggalkan untuk tenggelam atau berenang ke tepian—dan mengapa mereka harus bernasib demikian? Artikel ini berusaha menjawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan tersebut dengan mengeksplorasi bagaimana tanggung jawab dikiaskan dan dipraktikkan secara beragam, digarap ulang, diadu, ditolak di seluruh rangkaian pertalian konservasi orangutan. Dengan menggunakan etnografi kolaboratif multi-site, kami menelusuri hubungan pokok antara beberapa figur imajinasi umum pada simpul-simpul berbeda dalam konservasi—dari aktivisme lingkungan kawasan Utara dunia, hingga pertemuan LSM anggota masyarakat wilayah pedesaan melakukan hal itu, internasional tata imajiner “langka”, menunjukkan potret dominan menjadi dunia diterjemahkan terfragmentasi berbeda. Lebih jauh lagi, merenungkan tentang sebuah analitik dapat dibawa diskusi sedang berlangsung mengenai “keumuman” epos kini semakin lekat konservasi, yaitu: Antroposen. [langka, keumuman, jawab, orangutan, Antroposen, “It seems that only orangutans get jacket,” Bapa Dini comments sarcastically.11 All personal names this pseudonyms. Together with crowd villagers, observe organization prepare for release National Park Indonesian With help men from village, workers load five heavy metal cages local boats will take them site upriver. The hardly visible. To protect case accident, floats lashed sides their cages. “Whether people die doesn't seem matter,” continues. “I am confused why they waste much money just save orangutans,” another woman disbelief. “Can you believe pay 1 million rupiah (US$71) per boat? Four departing, that's not even including wages villagers looking after orangutans.” struggle make sense release. “They [orangutans] belong foreign countries hire care them,” reasons. “What benefit people?” person asks, continues laughingly, “Not bad, if become meal.” Schreer's field notes North, most visibly represented work rescue rehabilitation centers Borneo Sumatra. These captivity, wildlife trafficking, human-wildlife conflict, then rehabilitate train survive forest. Their eventual into “the wild” often celebrated rewarding conclusion arduous process, small victory efforts critically endangered species extinction.22 As Alexandra Palmer (2020) notes, there exists vast range professional opinion ethics value rehabilitation. not, however, captured popular depictions, portray one-way journey freedom individual apes. Yet, suggested above excerpt—written during Schreer Thung's visit upriver village Borneo—such events may be viewed quite differently those live near sites. That's because many see external player fraught, dynamic space—a space marked regular resource conflicts; socioeconomic, political marginalization indigenous communities; erosion people's customary rights (e.g., Li 1999; Tsing 2005). recent decades combination state-led modernization extractive capitalism has radically transformed lives environments like other inhabitants one Indonesia's key frontiers Eilenberg 2014; Sanders et al. 2019; 2016). Thus, self-evidently worthwhile project but that—like frontier development—raises concrete rights, ownership, legitimacy, sharing, justice (Howson 2018; Myers Muhajir 2015; Sikor 2013). Who, ask, responsible orangutans? Who right, duty, authority act against them, gains loses process? article, examine ideas widespread biodiversity legitimize its policies practices. Yet despite pervasiveness power, trope yet fully unpacked. What relations, subjectivities do concepts produce? on-the-ground effects? And diverge from, intersect with, coexist alongside regimes rights? By exploring context have three main aims. First, up Susanna Trnka Catherine Trundle's invitation think beyond dominant, individual-centered “neoliberal discourses responsibilization” acknowledge “interrelational” ways conceived enacted (Trnka Trundle 2017, 3). Specifically, relationship “commons” planet, nation-state, communities), varies it plays out bureaucracies experiences Bornean villagers. ground our analysis two key, overlapping processes: responsibilization responsivity. Responsibilization refers social, structural, affective means produce self-governing, environmentally aware subjects—such ethical Western consumers communities—who should orangutans.33 term merges Foucauldian renderings “governmentality” critical analyses environmentalism first (Foucault 1991) underpins explorations “environmental governmentality”/“environmentality” (Agrawal 2005; Luke 1995)—the technologies issues subjects Rutherford 2011). second manipulation autonomous individuals, Michel Foucault (2008) identified feature neoliberal governmentality (Fletcher 2010; 2–10). overlap through disciplinary governance NGOs’ incentivizing programs. show, mechanisms can also used targets deflect responsibilize others. Such moments underline never straightforward behaviors Cepek 2011; Forsyth Walker Singh 2013)—both individuals entities inevitably embroiled obligations interdependencies contrast, responsivity captures actions processes react adapt each “multiplicity responsibilities” 22).44 conflated similar-sounding “response-ability,” Donna Haraway (2016, 105) valorizes open-ended “praxis response” disposition (2, 16, 28, 35, 56, 105). Eva Haifa Giraud (2019, 69–75) “response-ability” cosmopolitan commitment openness itself exclusionary, foreclosing certain worlds avenues action—including, suggest, some research interlocutors. shall see, pragmatic, improvisational, always voluntary—a acting refusing, limiting, reworking responsibilities. especially visible where attempts communities give rise way responsive interactions, whereby staff around own other's responsibilities, creating divergences connections uncommon grounds. Our second, related aim disrupt hegemonic claims dominate thought practice. foregrounding persistent uncommonalities pervade nexus. Here, disparate bodies work. describe build interlocutors (in NGOs villages) of, transform, refuse, unsettle inter/national forests. clear, constitute forms theorization, elucidation, translation, disruption inspire ethnographic analysis. Second, pick challenge Marisol de la Cadena (2015) her collaborators contributors Blaser 2017a) recently posed invoked governments, industries, movements frame agendas (Blaser 2017b, 185). built assumption humans nonhumans inhabit singular world, ontologically distinct, use, control, contest access (186). leave little room for—and constantly neutralize dismiss—alternative human-nonhuman configurations, such notion “other-than-human” beings animals mountains persons agents 2017b; 2015). Against models, others highlight analytical purchase uncommoning: making “heterogeneous [human/nonhuman] assemblages life” usually invisibilized science, state, commoning agents. At same time, explore possibility building that, far demanding homogeneity, would undergirded divergence uncommons 192). similar spirit, seeks responsibilizing tracing engaged transformed, refused, contested. point, simply dismantle claims, lay bare irrelevance, discredit multifaceted concept commons,” been put both counterhegemonic use over years Bodirsky Hardin 1968; Harvey Ostrom 1990). Rather, gesture toward commonalities emerge ontologies, values, priorities—not so-called proposed new geological human dominance planet's biogeophysical processes. third aim, then, scholarly conversations powerful figure reshaped models (Holmes Its influence evident grappling Anthropocenic phenomena climate change, forest fires, plantation expansion) emerging discourses—particularly regarding human-orangutan coexistence anthropogenic landscapes Hockings Lee, Carr, Ahmad Meijaard Spehar Wich such, constitutes “problem space” (Moore 2016, 27) (about) point conclusion, ethnographically grounded thinking Anthropocene responsibility. approach, argue, condition, instead relations differential impacts ground. Like villagers’ responses move makes occluded accountability, (in)equality, (in)justice, allows us parse meanings asking who/what causing perpetuating mitigating redressing it. approach invites consider—as do—how responsively forge connections, however brief, uncommonality follows, reveal various ideals defined, performed, (re)configured four “domains” (Jensen 2017) conservation: (Chua), virtual adoption programs (Fair) national Indonesia (Stępień), interactions among NGOs, (Schreer Thung). Each domain entails distinct figures; stewardship, jurisdiction; generated, attributed, claimed, distributed. While representing all sprawling, diverse operations, illuminating when juxtaposed, intersect, diverge, other. respect, seeking deconstruct power dynamics, juxtaposition spark un/commonality material was elicited methods modalities—including village-based participant observation ethnic groups provinces Central West Kalimantan Thung), documentary visual (Chua, Fair, Stępień), interviews (all authors). held together derives talking interlocutors, well comparative cowriting Rather than neatly triangulating data sites, collaborative, fractal scholarship synthesize (uncommon, even) domains interrogate shared, multifarious, analytics concepts. February 2020, activist Greta Thunberg led thousands Youth Strike Climate march Bristol, United Kingdom. Amid crowds arresting sight: black coffin featuring white outline orangutan's face, species' population, threats, status. complemented placards species, lines “Our voice voiceless face crisis.”55 Film Climate, “Greta Comes Bristol,” Facebook album, 29, accessed March 25, https://m.facebook.com/pg/FilmStrikeforClimate/photos/?tab=album&album_id=199178748090625. coffins embodied spirit performative grief characterizing events, Extinction Rebellion's Funeral Marches “to mourn [on Earth] we've lost, losing still lose.”66 Rebellion, “Funeral March,” n.d., June 21, 2021, https://extinctionrebellion.uk/event/funeral-march/. long pedigree scalar logic decline theatrically invoked. Environmentalist revolved “‘declensionist’ narratives” awareness nature's beauty intimately linked foreboding looming destruction” (Heise 7; Adams 2004; Sodikoff 2012). Since late 20th century, narratives iconic images megafauna orangutans, polar bears, whales, serve synecdoches 22) larger entity—variously styled “nature,” environment,” “global biodiversity”—that under existential threat. years, creatures habitats embedded more capacious imaginary: commons. An extension earlier environmentalist debates 1990) manage “common pool[s] resources” “equally accessible everyone” 186), conjures world scaled, contiguous, dependent components, ecosystems, nation-states, humanity, individuals. Today, imaginary undergirds movements, Rebellion Zero Hour, technocratic programs, One Health Initiative Commons Alliance. latter's foundational document, example, Nakicenovic iv) “Global Commons” biomes regulate stability resilience Earth system.” These, authors assert, “our common heritage every child's birthright” (27), thus humanity's ensure resilient planet people” weather crises (27–28). ontological segues moral political, generic “we” exhorted planet. imperative takes specific orangutan-related activism. Orangutans concern since least 1960s, were threatened mainly logging trafficking (Rijksen 1986). From mid-2000s, plight orangutan” progressively reframed planetwide problem fueled loss consumption—notably palm oil, whose cultivation highlighted conservationists media driver deforestation extinction Sumatra Buckland 2005).77 Greenpeace UK, “Have Break?,” posted 17, 2010, https://vimeo.com/10236827; International, Rang-tan: Story Dirty Palm Oil, August 13, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQQXstNh45g; WWF “Consumer Choices Affect Wildlife,” September 10, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-1DQwaauwE. narrative oil acts device ways. implicates individual, killing faraway (Chua 882–85; Fair 2021). galvanizes saving apes, rain forest, biodiversity” either boycotting purchasing “sustainable” products contain oil. narrative's illustrated Greenpeace's short animation, gained UK-wide attention 2018. Comprising dialogue girl orphaned destroyed palm, Rang-tan ends promising “fight your [orangutan's] home” final reads “Dedicated 25 lose everyday.”88 Rang-tan. On original website (now off-line), viewers could sign petition “tell big brands stop using destroyers”; later, animation British schools resource, spurring students respond writing letters, consumer decisions, acts. collective pronouns deployed marches commons, Rang-tan’s enrolls (human) stewardship nonhuman, highly personalized species. reproduced, disseminated mainstream media, digital platforms 2018), organizations’ outreach, Cumulatively, form aesthetic infrastructure “responsibilization,” invokes commonality, privileges causal consumption → destruction biodiversity), produces particular savior, victim). way, establishes obligation—and indeed right—of lovers action “save orangutan.” next section shows, supporters participating I mean, know he's mine, felt like, adopted him.” Alex, UK-based adopter US- largely subscribe commonality described above. Fair's 54 adopters, experiment scales care, personalizing obligation orangutans. doing so, depart subjectivity “we,” thereby refashioning vision global/planetary rendering less abstract. A generated exercised “virtual adoption,” process (either themselves gift) donate individually named ape receive updates progress. offered mostly young orphans being cared Sumatra, taught skills necessary (hopefully) begin “wild” (Palmer 2020). Virtual directly underpinned discussed above; pinpoint nature documentaries commercial reason decided adopt. explicitly uses language kinship, relations. It avoids connotations property, enacts mode nonhuman Other. Adoption performs double rescaling general individual. moves away generalities part particularizes target charitable designating single adoptee. responsibilizes supporters, specifying unique ape. interviews, adopters expressed strong feeling attachment adoptee, displaying photo prominently home (often family photos); avidly following progress via social media; family, spiritual connection; declaring “my highlights adopters’ views financial commitment. For interviewees, donating took ownership plight. Adopters cancel adoptions, letting down. If forced reduce spending, said cease direct debits causes before severing ties adoptees—a choice reflects attachments. Although integral connection belied tenuous, mediated, symbolic connection. engaging playful fantasy “theirs” alone, had (more 400 charity's case), consequently donations did contributed generally Through donations, collection rehabilitant (not adoption), wild populations supported charities’ habitat schemes. simultaneously engage formations ranging wronged victims children forces wildness. Certain anthropomorphic sometimes infantilizing terms adoptees, affectionately framing “babies” “furry bubbly bubs.”99 Most, though all, organizations wary 2018). rehabilitated potential autonomy freedom, highlighting apes’ (hoped-for) return wildness factor decision support centers. apes celebration imminent reflected adoptees’ occasional uplifting reports ex-adoptees spotted sum, actors responding problems loss. symbolic, mediated philanthropic relationships apes—human orangutan—people enact abstract scale. multiscalar bridges planetary-level enabling feel members aligning undertake expansive transcends boundaries nation-state. suggests, view widely shared policy makers politicians Indonesia—one (alongside Malaysia) exist wild. There principle must forgotten: belongs state protected safeguarded administrators. Ir. Wiratno, director Natural Resources Ecosystems Conservation Agency (Ditjen KSDAE), December 2019 (ForestHints.news 2019) glance, stance management clear: reaffirmation sovereignty, abovementioned “principle” rooted “national commonweal” enshrined 1945 constitution, authorizes owner custodian behalf citizens.1010 extended, downplayed, questioned tandem experiments centralization decentralization, dynamics regional (Li practice, allowed elite profit industrial exploitation (McCarthy Warren 2009). invocation idiom delimits disrupts “idea ‘the world’ ground” privileging nation-state's sovereign right natural resources. This, picture. bureaucracy reveals, routinely mediates competing phenomena, biodiversity, national-level concer