Tyanif Rico Rodríguez, Postdoctoral Researcher at the Center for Advanced Latin American Studies, CALAS at Bielefeld University.
Adriana Ressiore C., PhD Candidate at the Wageningen School of Social Sciences, Wageningen University.
Jéssica Malinalli Coyotecatl Contreras, PhD Candidate at the Anthropology Department, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Alberto E. Morales, Assistant Professor, Department of Global Studies and Modern Languages, Drexel University.
Columba González-Duarte, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, New School for Social Research.
Mara Dicenta, Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Integrative Conservation, William & Mary.
Latin American feminist thought has shaped theoretical and practical understanding of repairing our increasingly damaged planet by incorporating ecocriticism, decolonization scholarship, and Indigenous thought and practices (Heffes, 2013; Segato, 2018; Díaz Lozano et al., 2021; Castro, 2023; De Souza et al. 2024). This piece brings scholars from and/or working in Latin America to share their thoughts on care, extinction, and more-than-human reciprocity. Considering the last decade of theories and practices of care in Latin America, the following examines care and its capacity to repair the ‘care crisis.’
Care, as approached by feminist theory and practice, is a multifaceted concept. It is seen as unpaid work, primarily carried out by women, and other forms of feminized labor. These activities, crucial for social reproduction, have been appropriated by capitalist interests, leading to an undervaluation of this labor and hindering humanity’s ability to care for nature (Fraser 2022). Second, care is viewed as a daily practice that generates spaces between and for women to counteract patriarchy and acquire rights to care and be cared for (Brah 2022). Lastly, care is recognized as a political force with the potential to repair and mend a world in crisis and teach and guide us in navigating vulnerability and uncertainty (The Care Collective et al. 2020; Haraway 2019; Puig de la Bellacasa 2012; Parreñas 2018; Tsing 2015). In this last current, the proposition is to weave an attentive-curious care framework that repairs human and more-than-human relations and communities through a feminist ethic that emphasizes interconnection and interdependence (Puig de la Bellacasa 2017) and demands daily actions and reciprocal obligations (van Dooren 2014; Rose 2012). Nevertheless, Latin American feminist scholarship has also pointed out the challenges and im/possibilities of fully repairing the material and epistemic violence associated with colonialism, modernity, and capitalism. Decolonial scholars have prompted us to question how more-than-human reciprocity and other forms of caring require a different concept of time (Rivera Cusicanqui 2010) that resists Eurocentric linear temporality (Ostendorf-Rodríguez 2023; Castro 2023) and dismantles the separation between human and more-than-human bodies (Cabnal 2016). Building on these insights and other emergent approaches to more-than-human care, repair and un/repair1, and anthropological praxis, we prepared the following set of questions for a roundtable discussion at the American Ethnological Society and Association for Political and Legal Anthropology annual spring conference in Pittsburgh in April 2024 under the conference theme of ‘Repair.’ At this meeting, we explored three themes: care and repair, care and multispecies time, and care in praxis from a Latin American feminist lens. In what follows, we continue to explore these questions in a conversational (conversatorio) format that draws on feminist practices of attentive listening to foster solidarity and generate knowledge that resonates with the more-than-human care we want to build. Conversing with each other invites us to think together and address these themes without tight boundaries, offering open-ended reflections of our connected research and interests.
We continue to explore these questions in a conversational (conversatorio) format that draws on feminist practices of attentive listening to foster solidarity and generate knowledge that resonates with the more-than-human care we want to build.
How do we acknowledge and value that not everything deserves or can be repaired through care?
Adriana: Repair prompts me to think about care. As Fisher and Tronto (1990; 40) suggest, “caring [should] be viewed as a species of activity that includes everything that we do to maintain, continue, and repair our ‘world’ so that we can live in it as well as possible.” My research investigates more-than-human care practices and knowledge in different contexts in Brazil. Such practices question some of the pre-established work by Global North care thinkers while also bringing the potential to re-imagine socio-biodiversity conservation policies in the country. Leaning on different field experiences, I have come to understand that caring is riddled with contradictions, conflicts, and dilemmas (Bartos 2019; Cox 2010). I am also reminded that care is a process of continual and constant iteration (Moriggi et al. 2020). Situating this argument within the practices and knowledge(s) of the Brazilian quilombola2, Nego Bispo dos Santos (2023) asserts that we are a constant “começo, meio, começo” [“the beginning, the middle, and the beginning”], a process I suggest that can be similar to care iterations. However, when I think of repair, it gives me a sense of ending, finishing, and fixing. But, as Bispo do Santos reminds us, living is about re-starting rather than ending. Thinking with Bispo dos Santos, care’s iterations may invite us to contemplate the incompleteness of daily caring practices that involve humans and more-than-humans. Not finishing or not ending, un-repairing, conveys that there are living beings around the globe who constantly, and despite all odds, engage in daily care out of necessity, pleasure, and love.
Mara: I find Adriana’s emphasis on the incompleteness of repair very suggestive to think with the notion of un-repair. It reminds me of a Lacanian figure that one of my aunts once shared when reflecting on healing after state terror in Argentina: repair takes the form of a spiral, where one repeatedly passes through the same points, yet differently. This notion parallels Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui’s (1984; 2010b) analysis of the irreparable harms of the past. A sociologist and activist of Aymaran ancestry and one of the leading figures in subaltern thought in Bolivia and Abya Yala, Rivera Cusicanqui has shown how wounds, such as the colonial conquest, emerge furiously and tenaciously during times of crisis and revolt. However, wounds have an ambiguous character. Wounds involve both catastrophe and possibility, as captured by the Aymara concept of Nayrapacha, or “old times,” that, rather than being dead, can become future, or “past-as-future” (Rivera Cusicanqui 1984: 51). They produce not only pain but also promises for futures that, once destroyed in the past, can again become.
In Argentine Patagonia, my research on how life-scientists justify eradicating invasive species (i..e. North American beavers), in a region with a long history of organized erasure (Dicenta 2023) has taught me about the complex, necro-politically mediated relations between trapped animals, park guards, hunters, and dead forests. Those engaged in the impossible task of repairing ecosystems devastated by the beavers’ flooding activities are haunted by the specters of injured, killed, or amputated beavers. As ghosts always carry more than one story at a time (Gordon 2008), these ghostly animals also revive other memories of violence, genocide, militarization, and extractivism, collectively populating the forests with more-than-human ghosts that demand responses to injuries spanning different times and geographies (Dicenta and Correa 2021). For instance, humans remain the greatest fear for beavers, even in regions where they are reintroduced, protected, and cared for. Recent studies suggest beavers are haunted by a legacy of colonial persecution that nearly led to their extinction, with their fear expressing a dense intergenerational trauma (Swinnen, Hughes, and Leirs 2015). Hence, while time-making projects vary across life forms, these wounded histories are often relationally produced and shared across more-than-human worlds.
Not finishing or not ending, un-repairing, conveys that there are living beings around the globe who constantly, and despite all odds, engage in daily care out of necessity, pleasure, and love.
How do we conceptualize more-than-human reciprocal care across species?
Columba: Adriana and Mara, you are right that the ‘care crisis’ we experience in our daily lives and during fieldwork needs attention, but it’s calling for a renewed focus on care and repair. Here and elsewhere (Gonzalez-Duarte and Marcela-Magana 2023), we have been considering care and repair as two essential practices that need to be at the heart of daily activities. Care requires tuning to the needs of humans and more-than-humans so those beings can exist and flourish on their own terms. Care work is a delicate balance between independence and dependence (Taylor 2017). It shall not be imposed to achieve ‘social reproduction.’ Perhaps we need to think in terms of “inter-in-dependence” among those who provide and receive care. This inter-in-dependent care work goes beyond simply maintaining social life; it empowers everyone to pursue their own flourishing and recognizes difference.
The caring and repairing beyond social reproduction that I imagine is mindful of other humans’ and species’ differentiated needs, and sees care as a respectful reciprocity that enables inter-in-dependance. Indigenous collectives have long suggested that life is sustained through reciprocity. A chain of gifts that is not comparable in quantity and form but assembled through giving life and death across completely different agents as Mara and Adriana have explained, a delicate ethical/temporal balance co-created through millennia of inter-species cooperation (Bird-Rose 2012).
This reciprocity calls for mutual aid, an aid that is not pity. It also urges the question of how to practice care across different species that is not ‘too much care’ or caring ‘for’ to reproduce a social norm that is coercive (Taylor 2017). These questions have cut across my research with monarch butterflies in North America, a migratory insect that is now on a worrying trend to extinction. For example, I have observed and critically addressed how the insect is excessively cared-for by North American actors impacting Indigenous land in central Mexico at the expense of these native groups’ sovereignty (González-Duarte 2024). I have likewise witnessed this butterfly being forced to live in captivity by laboratories or butterfly farms in the name of care-for this butterfly. So here’s my question: how do we achieve careful attention? An attention that does not turn into erasing difference or denying agency, nor one that becomes an obligation to reproduce the social? Again, a butterfly in captivity doesn’t want to live in a laboratory to be ‘conserved’, ‘protected’ and ‘cared for.’ Mutual aid, reciprocal care, inter-in-dependance might begin with recognizing all beings in rightful difference and with a rightful need to care and be cared for in their own terms.
Adriana: What an inspiring reflection, Columba. I have also been riddled with distinguishing care from protection and conservation. How do we know if we are caring or protecting? Is it about the other’s needs, or are we imposing our idea of good care (Barnes 2012)? Moreover, I want to dive deeper into your shared thoughts about reciprocity.
Contrary to the commonsense notion of symmetrical reciprocity—I give you something, and you give me something back—observing and learning from care relations has shown me how humans and more-than-humans reciprocate differently. They also have different powers and do not necessarily relate harmoniously (Adams 2020). In the Artisanal Fishing Village of Siribinha in Bahia, Brazil (see image 3), more-than-human care and reciprocity happened, but not always balanced or on the same temporalities.
Local people and different species taught me that more-than-human care could be understood together with practices of interspecies reciprocity; these came in the form of being thankful and giving something back, even if that something is completely different. For instance, a fisherman told me how he planted, watered, and cared for a specific coconut tree. As we sat beneath it, he mentioned that even though many years had passed, he still takes care of it. While he spoke, the tree gave us shade and protection from the sun. Their care for each other did not happen at the same time, but reciprocity permeated the relationship between him and the coconut tree (Ressiore, Ludwig & El-Hani, under-review). Considering this anecdote, we must avoid conceptualizing more-than-human care or interspecies reciprocity only within neoliberal temporalities. By that, I mean not respecting more-than-human time, focusing only on productivity, services, and utilitarianism, and forgetting the deeper and meaningful relational exchanges between humans and non-humans. Otherwise, we risk reducing these relationships to mere transactions.
A butterfly in captivity doesn’t want to live in a laboratory to be ‘conserved’, ‘protected’ and ‘cared for.’ Mutual aid, reciprocal care, inter-in-dependance might begin with recognizing all beings in rightful difference and with a rightful need to care and be cared for in their own terms.
Alberto: Thank you, Adriana and Columba. Your observations resonate with what I have been thinking about in my work on value, the flattening of the more-than-human in biotech experiments, and the role of care and more-than-human care in scientific research. Care has never been just a human matter (Puig de la Bellacasa 2017). Engaging care in our work and anthropological praxis requires decentering the human and attuning to more-than-human agencies without flattening power differentials. It also requires engaging with what may appear as mundane practices and forms of community-making that constitute care work and what Central American feminists call forms of embodied solidarity (Cabnal 2020, Mendez 2023). Colombian feminist STS scholar Tania Pérez-Bustos points out that embracing care and its mundane life-sustaining power in our research ethos, “not as a moral statement, but a learning practice, a craft” underlines its political and ethical worlding effects (2017:p). The latter also echoes what you said above, Adriana, on care iterations and the emergence of processes of care. These are exciting aspects of multispecies ethnography, as they foster analytical affordances to explore the meanings of care for knowing and thinking with more-than-human worlds in and through technoscience, social movements, and various place-based configurations of naturecultures around the globe. In my work, I pay attention to differences in how scientists, individuals, and more-than-human organisms, such as fungi-growing ants, embody and practice care. Ethnographically, following these processes has opened a series of research questions, including the significance of more-than-human care for ecosocial worlds and notions of health and well-being vis-à-vis shifting environmental and planetary conditions.
What does it mean to imagine and enact other ways of living and caring that are less linear and not centered on efficiency and presentism3? Which scales, body-territories, and other relations may emerge from this view on care and un/repair?
Tyanif: I resonate with Mara’s idea of shared histories. It’s wonderful to think about the concept of reciprocity differently. As Adriana has proposed, it invites us to see the materiality of bodies and their historicity in other ways. Considering care and how we repair relationships through reciprocity should resonate with what Centemeri (2018) calls the emancipatory commons of reproduction, a way of understanding the production of the common beyond the transactional character based on an idea of human exceptionalism and, therefore, nature as a resource. On the contrary, the construction of the commons takes place in more-than-human entanglements and histories, and those relations take place on a territorial scale. How do we produce careful care? I would dare to answer: territorially. For my work with peasant communities in Colombia (Image 4), a territorial dimension to the materiality of care relations is key. Bodies and the meanings of relationships emerge in the ordinary through the affects, histories, and skills embedded in the landscape, as Krzywoszynska (2019) invites us to think.
Image 4: Daily practices from peasant women in Colombia, Photos by Tyanif Rico 2018.
A significant body of literature has described how territory is constituted through the performance of various agencies and territorialities (McCall et al. 2021). The idea of territorial care I have developed acknowledges the profound inter-in-dependence that underlies life as Columba remind us, thereby expanding the scope of community to encompass more-than-human interactions. Care is diffracted from everyday life through strategies that domesticate politics beyond the human. As a result, space and subjectivities emerge within a territorial framework, decentering the individual and resituating relations of interdependence.
These forms of relationship are visible in peasant agriculture, especially in the struggles of women and agroecology practitioners (Image 5) who disrupt the state-sponsored arrangements that regulate agriculture from a utilitarian and neoliberal perspective (Rico & Urquijo 2021), as Adriana points out. The Macehual women of Chiwik in Puebla, for example, share how this material entanglement is affectively produced when they claim that after their birth, their mothers bury their navel in the earth or others expose it at the top of the trees so that their essence remains there with the plants and with all those who dwell in the taltikpak (on the earth). Such practices of peasant agriculture require an intersectional perspective within a multi-species framework to create these shared histories (Pettit 2023). This includes interpreting the relations of care and power that emerge from socio-environmental conflicts over the forces of reproduction (Barca 2020). In this way, other scales and subjectivities, other forms of valuation, and the affirmation of the bodies that ‘matter’ are displaced and re-created.
Women’s struggles make visible the complex interdependence between bodies, between humans and more-than-humans, whose histories are intertwined with the materiality of the territory. From here, I would like to remind us of what the artisans of Chiwik, as “crafters of care” say: “It remains in our hands to generate a different situation, echoing our ancestral knowledge as an ally to get out of this deception where our life is just a utilitarian thing (Flores 2022; 113).
Jéssica: As Adriana and Mara indicated above, I also found that care practices are related to conflict. Moreover, people in struggles that defend human and more-than-human life also present a conceptual perspective on time and scale.
“Despite everything, we managed to grow. We already lived, but what about our children? And their children? That’s why we must care for and protect the land.” This or similar phrases are common among men and women fighting against the imposition of urbanizing infrastructure in central Mexico that would take away their access to land and water (Coyotecatl Contreras 2022). Such phrasing relocates yet-to-be-born generations as the measuring point for environmental responsibilities and, in doing so, destabilizes the present and the individual.
Against presentism or the modern vision of the ‘now’ as the only tangible reality in which the past is gone, and the future is to be conquered, the idea of one’s far-off offspring relocates discussions regarding nature and care beyond the now. Instead of an amorphous ‘future generations’ from mainstream discourse (i.e., UN 2024), there are clear links in mind; furthermore, by extending the discussion into the future, they also extend it into the past, weaving the present into an unbounded chain. This movement destabilizes the sentiment of urgency and immediacy that surrounds climate change and environmental protection discussions (Partridge et al. 2018) and introduces the idea of an open community. Contrary to (rightly) criticized perspectives on the stable, confined, or romanticized visions of the community (Zárate Hernández 1998), thinking about the difficulties of one’s upbringing in the light of the future necessarily incorporates the historical and structural violence against peasants and indigenous communities in Mexico and elsewhere.
Furthermore, centering potential generations questions current environmental concerns of efficiency, the idea of getting the most from the least and as soon as possible. By contrast, to include interrogations such as: what does it take for “our children’s children” to exist? The answer presumes the continuity of a collective (“us”) linked to water and land in a steady and constant relationship that requires openness. Therefore, care as part of the struggle for land and water that secures collective perseverance endorses a non-linear time that reckons with the violence of the past and present.
Mara: Yes, as Jéssica was pointing out, the weight of linear time, futurism, and mechanic notions of efficiency have not only justified extractivism but also neoliberal forms of conservation and environmental response. And as we know, defining scales of concern shapes the knowledges, temporalities, and ethics that matter (Norman 2012; Tsing 2012; Hecht 2018). Returning to Tierra del Fuego, the project aiming to eradicate the beavers employs militarized tactics to swiftly eliminate every individual, family, colony, and island, aiming to “clean” the entire territory. Prioritizing cost-benefit notions of efficiency, the plan mandated body-gripping traps deemed humane by European regulations (they trap by the chest, causing unconscious death in less than five minutes) because they could be spread without the cost of hunters having to monitor the traps. This had to be done fast to prevent beavers’ learning.
In the forest, some park guards refused to use these traps, which might not function as intended when placed hastily and carelessly. For instance, some beavers have been trapped by a leg, causing them to chew off their limbs to escape. For this reason, some guards advocate for traditional guachis, or snares, which entrap animals without killing them. This method requires significant labor, blending the traps with the environment to disguise them and monitoring daily to prevent prolonged stress. Rather than avoiding beavers’ learning and minimizing costs, this approach demands learning with the beavers and the forest while maximizing good relations across species. Of course, these more-than-human scales differ greatly from the “entire territory.”
Care as part of the struggle for land and water that secures collective perseverance endorses a non-linear time that reckons with the violence of the past and present.
How do we address care from a Latin American perspective? What is different from other perspectives on care from the Global North?
Mara: Going back to the park guards in Tierra del Fuego, who confront the military logic of the beaver eradication plan and refuse the European traps, I think these guards illuminate how multispecies agendas in Latin America have emerged in the defense of territory more than from posthuman inquiries (Dicenta 2024). The work of care in geographies confronting extractivism is organized not only for but also against destructive forces like real estate, mining, or oil corporations (Pintos and Astelarra, 2023). Nonetheless, this opposition differs from a militarized logic of erasure; it demands constant ways to recognize and nurture alterity and otherness.
Tyanif: I agree with everyone above about the effort to conceptualize care beyond neoliberal logic, and this is what the Latin American experience and ethnographers of Latin America bring to the table. For instance, “body-territory” is a notion about how the body becomes “political territory” through racialized, generic, and colonial devices that justify the exploitation of certain bodies and spaces (Zaragocin 2020). In the face of this order of inequality, this notion vindicates the construction of a community that expresses and arises from the history, culture, and spirituality of the peoples and beings that ancestrally belong to those territories. This is a possible tool for understanding ontological continuity that connects bodies and territories and a way of thinking and conceptualizing from other desiring horizons.
Jéssica: In a conversation about responses to COVID-19 made by a community radio station in a Nahua town in Central Mexico (Salgado Lázaro, Coyotecatl Contreras, and Moreno Del Angel 2021), a radialista linked the pandemic to capitalism and signaled the community as a place for alternatives, stating: “We need to stress that we have to keep sowing, harvesting our food; we need to continue caring for, loving, and respecting nature, Mother Earth. How? Doing what our parents and grandparents taught us to do right here in the community regarding agriculture, rituality, respect, communality, mutual aid, and community service. That strengthens us as people and weakens this capitalist system.” Through this quote, I highlight here the political and material vision such a perspective of care can shed on planetary affairs that divert from the state and the overarching economic system. I suggest we trace a Latin American perspective on care rooted in the histories of struggles in the region under the umbrella of ‘popular’ feminism from poor, working-class, and racialized communities (Conway 2021). As the quote above indicates, the fortitude of the communal is antagonistic to the perpetuation of the structures of oppression. It creates a space for envisioning a world beyond capitalism but also beyond liberal democracy (Gutiérrez Aguilar and Salazar Lohman 2015). More than an alternative perspective, I see the opportunity to infuse care with the radical imagination and praxis of ongoing struggles in the Global South and the theorization that stems from such complex material practices that weave care in the quotidian, the bodily, the collective, and as part of the fight for planetary survival.
Columba: In Latin America, care involves conflict, as Jéssica rightly affirms, but it is also rooted in communal joy and a desire to imagine potential more-than-human temporalities not constrained by linearity.
Alberto: I would like to push us to think beyond the binds of late capitalism and late industrialism to acknowledge formations of care already in existence throughout the Caribbean and Latin America. To echo Jéssica and others above, people in the Americas have been cultivating relations of care beyond repair or even athwart the limitations of capitalist capture. There have always been relations of care to deter and protect from political violence and oppressive structures. It is crucial that we pay attention to such ecologies of care, which include care of more-than-human others to cultivate life-sustaining and affirming conditions. Of course, there are forms of care that can be troubling and full of inequalities, and we see these depicted and analyzed in ethnographies of regimens of care from the Global North or transnational networks entering the Global South (Murphy 2015, Ticktin 2024). However, we need to pay more attention to the forms of care already existing in specific sites throughout Latin America and beyond (Raghuram 2016). These include forms, conceptualizations, and practices of care that can teach us located in the Global North academy more about care and expand our imagination of solidarity, possibilities, and futures.
We must ethnographically examine the relational aspects of care work and be attentive to what gets called care, not just by our interlocutors/collaborators but also scholars who write about care and care practices. Many things have been called care or engulfed into the discourse and analyses of care, especially in the Global North, that have given us some conceptualizations of care, but we still need to learn more. There are numerous ways to reimagine care and all its diverse possibilities that remain underexplored – particularly when we consider multispecies care (Munster et al. 2021, Schroer et al. 2021), more-than-human care, and even care from below through South-South solidarities or academically marginalized social groups in Latin America. There is much to learn from/in Latin America, especially given the shifting political landscapes of many nation-states and the long-established Afro-diasporic, Indigenous, and Afro-Indigenous political traditions.
References
Adams, Rachel. 2020. The Art of Interspecies Care. New Literary History, 51(4), 695–716.
Barnes, Marian. 2012. Care in everyday life: An ethic of care in practice. Policy Press.
Barca S. 2020. Forces of Reproduction: Notes for a Counter-Hegemonic Anthropocene. Cambridge University Press.
Bartos, Ann E. 2018. The uncomfortable politics of care and conflict: Exploring nontraditional caring agencies. Geoforum, 88, 66-73.
Bispo dos Santos, Antonio. 2023. A terra dá, a terra quer [The earth gives, the earth wants]. Ubu editora/PISEGRAMA. 1aed.
Bird Rose, Deborah. 2012. “Multispecies Knots of Ethical Time:” Environmental Philosophy 9 (1): 127–40.
Brah, Avtar. 2022. Decolonial Imaginings: Intersectional Conversations and Contestations. London: Goldsmith press.
Cabnal, Lorena. 2016. De Las Opresiones a Las Emancipaciones: Mujeres Indígenas En Defensa Del Territorio Cuerpo-Tierra (blog). July 2016. https://www.biodiversidadla.org/Documentos/De_las_opresiones_a_las_emancipaciones_Mujeres_indigenas_en_defensa_del_territorio_cuerpo-tierra.
———. 2020. “Defensa y recuperación del territorio de la sanación ancestral originaria” [Defense and recovery of territories of ancestral healing]. Pikara, February 17. https://www.pikaramagazine.com/2020/02/defensa-y-recuperacion-del-territorio-de-la-sanacion-ancestral-originaria/.
Castro, Azucena. 2023. Futuros Multiespecie: prácticas vinculantes para un planeta en emergencia. Buenos Aires: UBA.
Centemeri, L. 2018. Commons and the new environmentalism of everyday life. Alternative value practices and multispecies commoning in the permaculture movement, Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia, (2)289-314.
Conway, Janet M. 2021. “Popular Feminism: Considering a Concept in Feminist Politics and Theory.” Latin American Perspectives 48 (4): 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X211013008.
Coyotecatl Contreras, Jéssica Malinalli. 2022. “Nace Asamblea Nacional Por El Agua y La Vida En Santa María Zacatepec: Fortalecerá Ley de Los Pueblos.” Cholollan Radio (blog). August 29, 2022. https://fmcholollan.org.mx/2022/08/nace-asamblea-nacional-agua-y-vida-zacatepec/.
Cox, Rosie 2010. Some problems and possibilities of caring. Ethics, Place and Environment, 13(2), 113-130.
De Souza Lima, Lívia, Edith Otero Quezada, and Julia Roth, eds. 2024. Feminisms in Movement: Theories and Practices from the Americas. Gender Studies. Bielefeld: transcript.
Díaz, J., Cruz, D., Magalhães, L. y Pasero, V. (Coords.) (2021), Fronteras y cuerpos contra el Capital Insurgencias feministas y populares en Abya Yala. Buenos Aires, Argentina: El Colectivo; México: Bajo Tierra Ediciones.
Dicenta, Mara, and Gonzalo Correa. 2021. “Worlding the End: A Story of Colonial and Scientific Anxieties over Beavers’ Vitalities in the Castorcene.” Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society.
Dicenta, Mara. 2023. “White Animals: Racializing Sheep and Beavers in the Argentinian Tierra Del Fuego.” Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies 18 (2): 308–29.
Dicenta, Mara. 2024. “The Promise of Interspecies Desegregation: Allying with Capybaras against Gated Communities in Buenos Aires’ Wetlands.” Environment & Planning F.
Dooren, Thom van. 2014. “Care.” Environmental Humanities 5 (1): 291–94.
Fisher, Berenice & Tronto Joan (1990) Toward a feminist theory of caring. Circles of Care: Work and Identity in Women’s Lives, 35–62.
Flores Martínez, E. 2022. Siuasentekipacholis: Trabajo y cuidado colectivo entre mujeres. Bordados que relatan la vida. Tesis. Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico. Instituto de Investigaciones en Educación.
Fraser, Nancy. 2022. Cannibal Capitalism: How Our System Is Devouring Democracy, Care, and the Planet – and What We Can Do about It. London ; New York: Verso.
González-Duarte, Columba. Forthcoming 2024. The Many Care Worlds a Butterfly Crosses. Environmental Humanities. 16:3.
Gordon, Avery. 2008. Ghostly Matters: Haunting and the Sociological Imagination. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Gutiérrez Aguilar, Raquel, and Huáscar Salazar Lohman. 2015. “Reproducción comunitaria de la vida: Pensando la transformación en el presente.” El Apantle I:15–50.
Heffes, Gisela. 2013. Políticas de La Destrucción, Poéticas de La Preservación: Apuntes Para Una Lectura (Eco) Crítica Del Medio Ambiente En América Latina. Primera edición. Ensayos Críticos 59. Rosario?, Santa Fe, Argentina: Beatriz Viterbo Editora.
Hecht, Gabrielle. 2018. “Interscalar Vehicles for an African Anthropocene: On Waste, Temporality, and Violence.” Cultural Anthropology 33 (1): 109–41.
Haraway, Donna Jeanne. 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Experimental Futures: Technological Lives, Scientific Arts, Anthropological Voices. Durham: Duke University Press.
Krzywoszynska A. 2019. Caring for soil life in the Anthropocene: The role of attentiveness in more-than-human ethics. Trans Inst Br Geogr. 44: 661–675.
Méndez, M. J. 2023. Acuerpar: the decolonial feminist call for embodied solidarity. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 49(1), 37-61.
Menéndez, Mariana., García, Mariana. 2021. La vida en el centro. Feminismo, reproducción y tramas comunitarias, Bajo tierra ediciones, México.
Michael K. McCall, Andrew Boni Noguez, Brian Napoletano, and Tyanif Rico-Rodríguez (Eds.) 2021. Territorialising Space in Latin America: Processes and Perceptions. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Morales-Magaña and Columba González-Duarte 2023 “‘Caring as Implication: Reflections through More-Than-Human and Feminists Perspectives’.” In A Sign of Our Times: Caring in an Unsettling World, American Ethnologist Website. https://americanethnologist.org/online-content/collections/uncaring-world/caring-as-implication
Moriggi, Angela; Soini, Katriina; Bock, Bettina B. & Dirk, Roep. 2020. Caring in, for, and with nature: An integrative framework to understand green care practices. Sustainability, 12(8), 3361.
Münster, Ursula, Thom van Dooren, Sara Asu Schroer, and Hugo Reinert. 2021. “Multispecies Care in the Sixth Extinction.” Theorizing the Contemporary, Fieldsights, January 26. https://culanth.org/fieldsights/series/multispecies-care-in-the-sixth-extinction
Murphy, M., 2015. Unsettling care: Troubling transnational itineraries of care in feminist health practices. Social studies of science, 45(5), pp.717-737.
Norman, Emma S. 2012. “Cultural Politics and Transboundary Resource Governance in the Salish Sea.” Water Alternatives 5 (1): 138–60.
Ostendorf-Rodríguez, Yasmine. 2023. Let’s Become Fungal! Mycelium Teachings and the Arts: Based on Conversations with Indigenous Wisdom Keepers, Artists, Curators, Feminists, and Mycologists. Amsterdam: Valiz.
Parreñas, Juno Salazar. 2018. Decolonizing Extinction: The Work of Care in Orangutan Rehabilitation. Experimental Futures : Technological Lives, Scientific Arts, Anthropological Voices. Durham: Duke University Press.
Partridge, Tristan, Merryn Thomas, Nick Pidgeon, and Barbara Herr Harthorn. 2018. “Urgency in Energy Justice: Contestation and Time in the United States and United Kingdom.” Energy Research and Social Science 42:138–46.
Pettit, Andrea. 2023.Conceptualizing the Multispecies Triad: Towards a Multispecies Interesectionality, Feminist Anthropology; 4: 23–37
Pintos, Patricia, and Sofía Astelarra, eds. 2023. Naturalezas Neoliberales: Conflictos En Torno al Extractivismo Urbano-Inmobiliario. Buenos Aires: El Colectivo.
Puig de la Bellacasa, María. 2012. “‘Nothing Comes Without Its World’: Thinking with Care.” The Sociological Review 60 (2): 197–216.
———. 2017 Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More Than Human Worlds. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia. 1984. Oprimidos Pero No Vencidos. Luchas Del Campesinado Aymara y Qhechwa 1900-1980. La Paz: La Mirada Salvaje.
———. 2010.a Ch’ixinakax Utxiwa: Una Reflexión Sobre Prácticas y Discursos Descolonizadores. Buenos Aires: Retazos : Tinta Limón Ediciones.
———. 2010.b Violencias (Re)Encubiertas En Bolivia. La Paz: Piedra Rota.
Raghuram, P. (2016). Locating care ethics beyond the global north. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 15(3), 511-533.
Ressiore, Adriana; Ludwig, David; El-Hani, Charbel (under-review) “The Conceptual Potential of “More-Than-Human Care”: A Reflection with an Artisanal Fishing Village in Brazil”. Geo: Geography and Environment.
Rico Rodriguez, Tyanif y Pedro Urquijo. 2021. “Sobre la figura del campesino y la gestión del territorio: Una aproximación desde Nariño (Colombia)” Historia Agraria, no. 83, pp. 225-258.
Rose, Deborah Bird. 2012. “Multispecies Knots of Ethical Time:” Environmental Philosophy 9 (1): 127–40.
Salgado Lázaro, Ana Laura, Jéssica Malinalli Coyotecatl Contreras, and Yeyectzin Moreno Del Angel. 2021. “Radio Tsinaka En Pandemia: Comunicación Contra El Despojo y Por La Vida.” Regions and Cohesion 11 (3): 102–14. https://doi.org/10.3167/reco.2021.110307.
Schroer, Sara Asu, Thom van Dooren, Ursula Münster, and Hugo Reinert. 2021. “Introduction: Multispecies Care in the Sixth Extinction.” Theorizing the Contemporary, Fieldsights, January 26. https://culanth.org/fieldsights/introduction-multispecies-care-in-the-sixth-extinction
Segato, Rita Laura. 2015. La Crítica de La Colonialidad En Ocho Ensayos: Y Una Antropología Por Demanda. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Prometeo Libros.
Segato, Rita Laura. 2018. Contra-Pedagogías de La Crueldad. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Prometeo Libros.
Swinnen, Kristijn R.R., Nelika K. Hughes, and Herwig Leirs. 2015. “Beaver (Castor Fiber) Activity Patterns in a Predator-Free Landscape. What Is Keeping Them in the Dark?” Mammalian Biology 80 (6): 477–83.
Taylor, Sunaura. 2017. Beasts of Burden: Animal and Disability Liberation. New York London: The New Press.
The Care Collective, Andreas Chatzidakis, Jamie Hakim, Jo Littler, Catherine Rottenberg, and Lynne Segal, eds. 2020. The Care Manifesto: The Politics of Interdependence. London ; New York: Verso Books.
Ticktin, M., 2024. Care as political revolution? Focaal, 2024(98), pp.64-70.
Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt. 2012. “On Nonscalability: The Living World Is Not Amenable to Precision-Nested Scales” 18 (3): 505–24. https://doi.org/10.1215/0961754X-1630424.
———. 2015. The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
———. ed. 2017. Arts of Living on a Damaged Planet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
UN, United Nations. 2024. “Zero Draft of the Declaration of the Future Generations.” United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/summit-of-the-future/documents
Zárate Hernández, José Eduardo. 1998. “Ethnography, Cultural Change, and Local Power.” Journal of Historical Sociology 11 (1): 138–49.
Zaragocin, S., and Caretta, M.A. 2020. Cuerpo-territorio: A decolonial feminist geographical method for the study of embodiment. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 3 (5):1–16.
