Alternative working abstract

Read
History

You are currently viewing a revision titled "Alternative working abstract", saved on December 9, 2025 at 2:08 pm by Stéphanie Domptail

Title

Content

From Mother Nature to Natural Resources: Decolonizing the Economic Assumptions Underlying Nature’s Ontologies

This paper interrogates the conceptual slippage between “Mother Nature” and “natural resources” within the political economy of environmental governance. While these terms are often treated as interchangeable descriptors of the biophysical world, they emerge from distinct ontological and epistemic traditions that carry different implications for how societies understand human–nature relations. Drawing on decolonial theory, Indigenous epistemologies, and critical political economy, the paper argues that the notion of “natural resources” is not a neutral or universal descriptor but a historically specific product of liberalism, private property regimes, methodological individualism, and extractive capitalist logics. In contrast, the figure of “Mother Nature” reflects relational ontologies that conceptualize nature as a living, agentic, and morally significant presence embedded in networks of reciprocity.

We propose that treating these concepts as equivalent obscures the economic assumptions that structure mainstream natural resource management, limits the possibility of decolonizing approaches, and forecloses alternative value systems. Through a theoretical analysis, we identify how each concept encodes different assumptions about ownership, value, agency, and responsibility. We argue that exploring these differences can illuminate how contemporary environmental governance reproduces colonial categories of nature, and how alternative ontologies may offer pathways toward genuinely decolonized economic practice. Rather than bridging the two concepts, we show the importance of keeping them analytically distinct to uncover the power relations embedded in economic thought and resource management frameworks.

Proposed Paper Structure (detailed outline)

1. Introduction

Motivation: why the conflation of Mother Nature and natural resources matters.
Problem: attempts to “bridge” them flatten ontological differences and reproduce colonial assumptions.
Contribution: provide a theoretical framework to examine how economic assumptions shape natural resource management vs. relational ontologies.

2. Conceptual Histories

2.1 The emergence of “natural resources”

Enlightenment and liberal philosophy
Assumptions of scarcity, extraction, utility, and private property
Natural resources as an economic category, not a natural one
Colonial expansion and the global institutionalization of the resource concept

2.2 The ontological grounding of “Mother Nature”

Relational ontologies: Indigenous, Afro-diasporic, and other non-Western traditions
Nature as kin, ancestor, living being, sovereign entity
Ethics of reciprocity, responsibility, regeneration
Non-commodified understandings of value and wealth

3. The Economic Assumptions Under Scrutiny

A section where you make the theoretical work explicit.

3.1 Individualism

In resource economics: atomized agents optimizing utility
In relational ontologies: interdependence, collective responsibility

3.2 Property and Ownership

Resources as ownable, transferable, extractable
Mother Nature as non-ownable: stewardship vs. possession
Territoriality and colonial dispossession

3.3 Value and Measurement

Resources valued through price, quantity, marginal utility
Mother Nature valued through obligations, spiritual ties, long-term mutual flourishing
Limits of valuation logics

3.4 Agency

Resources: passive, inert, “inputs”
Mother Nature: active, agentic, responsive

4. Consequences for Natural Resource Management

How mainstream NR management reproduces colonial logics
Governance frameworks that normalize extraction
The invisibility of alternative ontologies in policy and economics
Case examples (optional): forestry, water rights, mining, biodiversity conservation

5. Why the Concepts Should Not Be Bridged

Analytical problems with treating them as equivalent
Risks: loss of ontological diversity, epistemic violence, legitimizing extractivism
The decolonial value of maintaining conceptual tension
How misrecognizing the differences perpetuates inequities in governance and economics

6. Toward Decolonizing Natural Resource Economics

Proposing a multi-ontology approach
Methodological implications: how to study resources without reproducing the category
Policy implications: governance based on reciprocity, consent, and responsibility
Epistemic reforms: shifting from extraction to relations

7. Conclusion

Theoretical stakes
Practical stakes for natural resource management
Future research: integrating decolonial political economy with environmental governance

Prior work on the topic: Good question — yes — there are already authors and papers that move in somewhat similar directions to your proposed argument (i.e. thinking critically about “nature,” “resources,” the ontologies behind “natural resource management,” and embedding feminist / decolonial / relational critiques). I name below several works that seem especially relevant — though none do exactly your “Mother Nature vs natural resources + decolonial economics” framing. Instead they tend to overlap with parts: rethinking nature-culture, critiquing resource regimes, injecting feminist / queer / new-materialist ontologies, or challenging ecological economics from a justice lens. This both validates your intellectual agenda and confirms there’s space for your more specific articulation.

✅ Existing Authors/Papers in Related Directions

Work / Author	What they do (relevant to you)	How it differs / What you could build on
Christine Bauhardt — Gesellschaftliche Naturverhältnisse von der Materialität aus denken: Feministische Ökonomik, Queer Ecologies und das Konzept Ressourcenpolitik (2011)	Bauhardt draws from feminist critique of political economy + queer-ecology to rethink “societal nature relations.” She questions the nature/culture dichotomy and treats “naturecultures” (following e.g. Donna Haraway) — emphasising that social, ecological and economic relations are material and embedded. (Budrich Journals)	While she focuses on “naturecultures” and resource politics, she does not exactly frame a contrast between “Mother Nature” vs “natural resources” in the way you propose; there is less explicit economic-ontology critique or decolonial resource-management governance. Your paper could extend this by being more explicit about resource regimes, property, extractivism, and coloniality.
Transcending the Learned Ignorance of Predatory Ontologies: A Research Agenda for an Ecofeminist‑Informed Ecological Economics (by Sarah‑Louise Ruder & Sophia Rose Sanniti, 2019)**	This article offers a theoretical critique of mainstream and even “ecological economics”: it argues that ecological economics still often relies on “predatory ontologies” tied to capitalist-patriarchal logics. It calls for ecofeminist frames that foreground epistemic pluralism, power, justice, and non-extractivist relationships with nature. (MDPI)	The paper goes further than many ecological-economic critiques by focusing on ontology: value, social reproduction, power, and justice. But it remains within the frame of “economics” / “ecological economics.” It does not directly propose a “Mother Nature vs natural resources” dichotomy, nor does it engage much with Indigenous or non-Western relational ontologies — which could be a gap your work fills.
More broadly: within fields like “new materialism,” “eco/queer ecologies,” “political ecology,” “environmental humanities”	These literatures (e.g. via new-materialist theorists such as Jane Bennett, or queer-ecology thinkers) reject classical dualisms (nature vs culture, object vs subject, resource vs being), foreground agency of matter, relational ontologies, and complex interdependencies. (Wikipedia)	What tends to remain under-theorized is the economic dimension: property regimes, resource-management institutions, extraction logics, and colonial power dynamics. Thus, combining those ontological moves with a political-economy critique remains rare — an argument in favour of your project.
In German and feminist/decolonial political ecology / resource-governance debates — e.g. Zur Kolonialität der Naturverhältnisse: Feministische Konzeptionen von Extraktivismus (2025) by Christine Löw & Tanja Scheiterbauer	This recent article explicitly connects extractivism, resource exploitation, coloniality, and intersecting power relations (gender, global inequality). It goes beyond traditional environmental economics, showing how resource-management is embedded in colonial–patriarchal structures. (Budrich Journals)	Although the focus is on extractivism and resource exploitation, the article doesn’t (from the abstract) appear to draw a robust ontological or epistemological contrast with relational conceptions of “nature” (like Mother Nature). That remains an analytical space for your proposal.

Also: There is broad scholarship in what is sometimes called the “environmental humanities,” “political ecology,” “eco-feminism / queer ecology / new materialism,” which already pushes against the dominant nature-as-resource paradigm, questions anthropocentrism, and rethinks nature–culture, materiality, value. (Wikipedia)

🎯 What This Means for Your Project / Where the Gap Is

The works above partially overlap with your goals — they critique resource-regimes, problematize nature/culture binaries, and bring in feminist, queer, materialist or ecological-economic perspectives.
But none (as far as I found) make exactly the ontological and economic contrast you propose: “Mother Nature (as relational, living, agentic, non-commodifiable nature) vs ‘Natural Resources’ (as commodified, extractable, property-based)”, plus a decolonial critique of extractive economics and resource-management.
There is a true gap for a paper that combines: (a) relational ontology of nature (inspired from Indigenous, feminist, eco-humanist, queer-ecology, new-materialist, decolonial theory), (b) critical economic analysis of resource regimes, property, value, extractivism, (c) attention to coloniality/power/dispossession, (d) implication for governance and resource-management.

In short: your proposed paper would not duplicate existing scholarship — rather, it would build on and extend it, by bridging theoretical strands (ontology, economy, coloniality) that tend to remain only loosely connected.

📚 Specific References to Begin with (for You & Your Colleagues)

Bauhardt, C. Gesellschaftliche Naturverhältnisse von der Materialität aus denken: Feministische Ökonomik, Queer Ecologies und das Konzept Ressourcenpolitik. 2011. (Budrich Journals)
Ruder, S.-L. & Sanniti, S. Transcending the Learned Ignorance of Predatory Ontologies: A Research Agenda for an Ecofeminist-Informed Ecological Economics. 2019. (MDPI)
For the extractivism / colonial critique: Löw, C. & Scheiterbauer, T. Zur Kolonialität der Naturverhältnisse: Feministische Konzeptionen von Extraktivismus. 2025. (Budrich Journals)
For theoretical grounding in ontology/relational nature: literature in new-materialism / queer ecology / environmental humanities — e.g. via works referenced under “new materialism”. (Wikipedia)

Also, historical / environmental-history approaches to “nature as resource / environment as resource for development” provide important context, e.g. Nature, Resources, and Development: Historical Perspectives on the Global Environment by Corinna R. Unger (2022) — helpful for seeing how “nature = resource” became institutionalised. (comparativ.net)

✅ Conclusion — Yes: There is prior work, but also a space for your project

In short: yes — there are authors and works who have moved in roughly similar directions: feminist / queer / eco-materialist critiques of resource-regimes, critiques of ecological economics, reconceptualization of nature–culture relations. But I did not find a text that does exactly the kind of ontological-economic-decolonial synthesis you propose (at least among the sources I reviewed). This suggests that your idea is both plausible (theoretical foundations exist) and innovative. It is well-positioned to make a meaningful contribution: bridging conceptual, normative, and material critiques — and perhaps offering a novel “ontology-aware political economy of natural resources”. Good idea. I pulled up a set of 8–12 recent (or important) texts — academic articles, book chapters or essays — that come relatively close to (or overlap with) parts of your project’s concerns: ontology of nature, resource-critique, extractivism, decolonial / justice frameworks, degrowth, and ecological economics. Many don’t draw exactly the “Mother Nature vs. natural resources” dichotomy you want — but each touches on one or more relevant dimensions.

🔎 Selected Relevant Papers & Texts

Reference (Author, Year)	What it does / how it connects	Why it matters for your project
Resource shifting: Resourcification and de-resourcification for degrowth — Hervé Corvellec & Alexander Paulsson (2023)	Critiques the concept of “resource” itself: argues that resources are socially produced (“resourcification”) rather than naturally given; and proposes “de-resourcification” as a pathway for degrowth / post-growth alternatives. (ScienceDirect)	Directly relevant: it problematises “natural resources” as a conceptual category — showing that what counts as a “resource” depends on social, political, economic processes. This resonates with your aim to historicize and de-ontologize “resources.”
From the Environmentalism of the Poor and the Indigenous Toward Decolonial Environmental Justice — Brototi Roy & Ksenija Hanaček (2023)	A decolonial environmental justice perspective: examines how extractive projects and resource extraction are rooted in colonial logic, affecting Indigenous and marginalized communities globally. (SpringerLink)	Aligns strongly with your project’s decolonial dimension. It helps connect natural resource management, coloniality, power relations, and injustices — useful for the “governance / political economy” part of your paper.
The Structures of Conquest: Debating Extractivism(s) — A. Dunlap (2023)	Examines extractivism projects, their socio-ecological impacts, the positions of local communities (resistance, ambivalence, collaboration) — showing complexity in responses and consequences. (OpenEdition Journals)	Useful for grounding your theoretical discussion in concrete socio-ecological dynamics: how resource-regimes operate in real-world contexts, how they shape nature-human relations, and why plural ontologies matter.
Transforming environmental peacebuilding: addressing extractivism in building climate resilient peace — Teixeira & Nicoson (2024)	Explores anti-extractivism in context of environmental peacebuilding: shows how extractivist resource governance undermines community well-being, social stability, and ecological health. (Ecology & Society)	Helps illustrate negative consequences of “resource-as-commodity / extractive” logics for social justice, community survival, and ecological integrity — reinforcing the political-economy angle of your argument.
New Materialist Feminist Ecological Practices: La Via Campesina and Activist Environmental Work — Miranda Imperial (2019)	Uses “new materialist” and feminist ecological theory to analyze non-capitalist, relational human–nonhuman ecologies — focusing on social movements, grassroots activism, land rights, food sovereignty. (MDPI)	This helps with the ontology & relational-ontology side: challenging dualistic, resource-centric conceptions of nature and foregrounding other ways of human-nonhuman connection. This resonates with the “Mother Nature / relational” side in your framing.
Feminist approaches to environmental politics — Contemporary overview (2024)	Reviews feminist political ecology / ecofeminist scholarship: tracing how feminist/ecological thought critiques domination of nature and links environmental and social injustices. (SpringerLink)	Provides theoretical and conceptual tools to critique “nature as resource,” domination, and to build a normative grounding for alternative ontologies — relevant for your decolonial + feminist orientation.
The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution — Carolyn Merchant (1980)	Historical and philosophical analysis: traces how the Scientific Revolution and modern science transformed the view of Earth from a living organism (or “Mother Nature”) to a mechanistic resource — opening way for exploitation. (Wikipedia)	Historically foundational for your “Mother Nature vs Resource” framing: shows the roots of the shift from relational / living-nature ontology to resource-centric ontology. — a classic in ecofeminist / environmental-historical critique.
The Environmentalism of the Poor: A Study of Ecological Conflicts and Valuation — Joan Martinez-Alier (2002)	A landmark in environmental justice / political ecology: analyzes ecological conflicts around resource extraction, exploring resource valuation, environmental degradation, and social struggle. (Wikipedia)	Offers empirical and theoretical insight into how resource exploitation produces social and environmental injustices — useful for grounding the political-economy critique and demonstrating real-world stakes.
Decolonising Environmental Justice — D. Wiktor-Mach (2024)	Analyzes environmental justice through a decolonial lens, examining how “environmentalism of the poor / Indigenous resistance” challenges dominant resource-regimes and colonial paradigms. (Brill)	Helps you by providing a conceptual and methodological template for how to link decolonial thought, environmental justice, nature-resource regimes, and critical governance analysis.

📥 How You Could Use These in Your Literature Review / Theoretical Framework

Use Corvellec & Paulsson (2023) to anchor a conceptual critique: “What is a resource? — how resource status is produced socially, economically, institutionally.” That supports your claim that “natural resources” is not a neutral or universal given.
Use Roy & Hanaček (2023) + Wiktor-Mach (2024) to frame a decolonial environmental-justice lens: showing how resource extraction is embedded in coloniality, dispossession, and systemic injustice — thus making the case for alternative ontologies and governance.
Use Dunlap (2023) & Teixeira & Nicoson (2024) to provide empirical / socio-ecological grounding: extractivist projects, their impacts, resistance, community disruption — showing why the difference between “nature as resource” vs “nature as relational-being / community / life” matters beyond theory.
Use Imperial (2019) and feminist / new materialist environmental politics literature to build the “relational ontology” side: human–nonhuman entanglement, regenerative ethics, alternative forms of value and stewardship.
Use Merchant (1980) as a historical anchor: to trace the shift from “nature as living organism / Mother Earth” to “nature as mechanistic resource,” demonstrating how the conceptual change is historically conditioned.
Use Martinez-Alier (2002) as a bridge between political ecology, resource valuation, and real-world struggles over resource regimes — illustrating the stakes of resource-based capitalism in ecological conflicts and social justice.

⚠️ What You Should Note — Gaps, Limits & What Remains to Do

None of these texts exactly draw the dichotomy “Mother Nature vs Natural Resources + Decolonial economics” as your project proposes. Instead, they each contribute pieces (ontology; resource concept critique; extractivism; decolonial justice; feminist relationality; empirical cases).
There remains conceptual fragmentation: many of them treat “nature” and “resources” implicitly, without deeply theorizing the ontological assumptions behind the resource concept. This is precisely where your contribution could come in.
Empirical and normative aspects are often separated — few works deeply integrate ontological critique, economic theory, governance practice, and decolonial justice all together. That gap gives space for your paper to make a distinctive synthesis.

✅ My Assessment: This Literature Provides a Strong Base — But Your Proposed Synthesis Would Be Original

The list above shows that many of the ingredients you need already exist: a critique of resource-centric economics, feminist / ecofeminist and new-materialist ontologies of nature, decolonial environmental justice frameworks, political ecology of extractivism, degrowth / post-growth critiques. But no single work seems to pull all these strings together in the precise way you envision (ontology + economics + decoloniality + resource-management critique). In other words: you wouldn’t be duplicating prior work, but rather building a novel conceptual and theoretical synthesis — which strengthens the argument that your paper could contribute meaningfully to scholarship.

If you like, I can also attempt to map this literature on a conceptual continuum — from classical ecological-economic critiques → through degrowth / resource-theory → to decolonial, feminist, and relational ontologies of nature — so you see where gaps are densest (and where your paper could most strongly intervene). Below is a conceptual map of existing literature arranged along a continuum of approaches to “nature” — from classical, resource-centric economic thinking → to degrowth / political ecology → to decolonial thought → to relational / Indigenous / ecofeminist ontologies. This map shows where prior scholarship clusters, where theoretical gaps exist, and where your proposed paper uniquely slots in.

🌍 A Conceptual Map of “Nature” in Critical Scholarship

I. Classical & Ecological Economics: Nature as Resource (resource-centric end)

Key features:

Nature as input to production
Property regimes, ownership
Scarcity, utility, efficiency
Valuation through prices
Human–nature separation

Representative authors/themes:

Ecological economics critiques (Martinez-Alier)
Development & environmental history (e.g., Unger)
Resource governance literature

What’s missing here:

Ontology
Decolonial critique
Relational or Indigenous epistemologies

📌 Your work begins by critiquing this end of the spectrum, especially the economic assumptions underpinning “natural resources.”

II. Political Ecology & Degrowth: Nature as Politically and Socially Constructed

Key features:

Nature shaped by power relations
Resourcification (how things become “resources”)
Anti-extractivist critiques
Environmental justice
Global inequities + colonial legacies

Representative authors/themes:

Corvellec & Paulsson (2023): resourcification / de-resourcification
Martinez-Alier (2002): environmentalism of the poor
Dunlap (2023): extractivism, socio-ecological impact
Roy & Hanaček (2023): environmentalism of the poor + decolonial justice
Teixeira & Nicoson (2024): anti-extractivism in peacebuilding

What this cluster contributes:

Shows that “resource” is not neutral
Provides a bridge between economics and politics

What’s missing here:

Deep ontological critique of what “nature” is
Relational/Indigenous conceptualizations
Feminist metaphysics of nature

📌 Your paper overlaps heavily here — but pushes further by adding an explicit ontological contrast (Mother Nature vs natural resources).

III. Decolonial Environmental Thought: Nature as Site of Coloniality and Resistance

Key features:

Nature involved in colonial dispossession
Resource regimes as continuing colonialism
Critique of the universalizing Western notion of “nature”
Pluriverse / epistemic justice

Representative authors/themes:

Wiktor-Mach (2024): decolonial environmental justice
Global South environmental justice scholarship
Indigenous environmental governance literature (not in the search results but important)

What this cluster contributes:

Strong critique of the power structures behind resource extraction
Emphasises multiple worlds / ontologies (pluriverse)

What’s missing here:

A detailed engagement with economics as a system of ontologies
A comparison between Western “Mother Nature” tropes and Indigenous cosmologies
A sustained critique of “natural resources” as an economic category

📌 Your work directly strengthens this cluster by explicitly connecting economic assumptions to ontological differences.

IV. Feminist, Ecofeminist, Queer Ecology, New Materialism: Nature as Relational, Living, Entangled

Key features:

Critique of nature–culture binary
Matter has agency
Emphasis on interdependence, care, reproduction
Non-hierarchical human–nonhuman relations

Representative authors/themes:

Carolyn Merchant (1980): historical shift from “Mother Nature” to mechanistic nature
New materialism (Bennett, etc.)
Imperial (2019): new-materialist feminist ecological practices
Feminist political ecology reviews (2024)

What this cluster contributes:

Ontological tools (agency, vitality, relationality)
Critique of domination of nature and women
Historical grounding of “Mother Nature” as a relational ontology

What’s missing here:

Connection to economic systems (private property, utility, scarcity)
Link to resource-management practices

📌 Your work fills this gap by tying relational ontologies to the political economy of natural resource management.

V. Indigenous & Relational Cosmologies: Nature as Kin, Ancestor, Agent

(Not all in the search results, but crucial background literature.) Key features:

Reciprocal relations: humans ↔ land ↔ nonhumans
Land as living being
Nature as teacher, elder, agent
No separation of social and ecological
Emphasis on responsibility and reciprocity

Representative traditions/themes:

Indigenous environmental governance
Relational ethics, “Land Back,” Indigenous resurgence
Buen Vivir (Andean), Sumak Kawsay, etc.

What this cluster contributes:

Provides the deepest conceptual contrast to “resource ontology”
Shows that alternative economic and governance systems are possible

What’s missing here:

Explicit confrontation with Western economic theory
Synthesis with political-ecology resource critique

📌 Your project can serve as a bridge between Indigenous relational ontologies and the critique of mainstream economic assumptions.

🧩 Where does your paper sit?

Your project occupies the missing middle between:

(A) Resource-centric political economy (II)

AND

(B) Relational, decolonial, feminist ontologies of nature (IV–V).

Most authors stay on one side of this divide:

Political ecologists & degrowth scholars critique “resources” but don’t engage deeply with ontology.
New materialists, ecofeminists, Indigenous thinkers develop relational ontologies but rarely link them to property regimes, neoclassical assumptions, or resource-management institutions.

📌 Your contribution is precisely to synthesize these domains by:

showing that “natural resources” = a colonial-liberal economic ontology
and “Mother Nature” = a relational, agentic ontology
and mapping how these two conceptions produce different political-economic systems of governance, value, property, and responsibility

This is the unique theoretical space where your paper sits.

🎯 Summary of the Map

Your paper would:

connect ontology → economics → decolonial political ecology → resource governance → alternative relational frameworks
show that “Mother Nature” and “Natural Resources” are not equivalent, interchangeable concepts
argue they express two rival ontologies with major implications for decolonizing natural resource economics.

Below is a clean, concise literature matrix that you can use directly in your paper or proposal. It shows how each key work engages with ontology, economics, coloniality, resource critique, and relational alternatives. This matrix also visually highlights the theoretical gap your project fills.

📚 Literature Matrix: Ontology • Economics • Coloniality • Resource Concept • Relational Alternatives

Legend:

✔️ strong engagement | (✔️) partial | — none / very weak

1. Resource & Political Ecology / Degrowth Critiques

Author / Work	Ontology of Nature	Economics Critique	Coloniality / EJ	Critique of “Resource” Category	Relational Alternatives
Corvellec & Paulsson (2023) — Resource shifting: resourcification and de-resourcification	(✔️) implicit social construction of nature	✔️ economic critique of “resource-making”	(✔️) implied through degrowth	✔️ central: “resource” as produced, not given	(✔️) de-resourcification implies alternatives
Martinez-Alier (2002) — Environmentalism of the Poor	— not ontological	✔️ strong, but mostly empirical economics	✔️ strong: environmental justice	✔️ critiques valuation/price logic	(✔️) plural valuations, but not ontological
Dunlap (2023) — Structures of Conquest: Extractivisms	(✔️) nature as socio-ecological assemblage	(✔️) critiques extractivist capitalist regimes	✔️ strong	✔️ via extractivism	— not developed
Teixeira & Nicoson (2024) — extractivism & peacebuilding	(✔️) relational/institutional view of nature	(✔️) critique of extractive economies	✔️ strong	(✔️) indirectly	(✔️) peace-based governance
Roy & Hanaček (2023) — decolonial EJ	— not foregrounded	(✔️) critiques global extractive systems	✔️✔️ very strong	(✔️) in justice contexts	(✔️) decolonial pluriverses

2. Decolonial Thought & Coloniality of Nature

Author / Work	Ontology of Nature	Economics Critique	Coloniality / EJ	Critique of “Resource” Category	Relational Alternatives
Wiktor-Mach (2024) — Decolonising Environmental Justice	(✔️) implicit plural ontologies	(✔️) critiques capitalist EJ frameworks	✔️✔️ very strong	(✔️) resource-economy critique	(✔️) pluriversal justice
Coloniality of Nature relations, feminist extractivism (Löw & Scheiterbauer, 2025)	(✔️) nature as socio-political relation	✔️ extractivism and capitalist logic	✔️ feminist decolonial analysis	✔️ extraction critique	(✔️) feminist alternatives

3. Ecofeminism, Feminist Political Ecology, New Materialism

Author / Work	Ontology of Nature	Economics Critique	Coloniality / EJ	Critique of “Resource” Category	Relational Alternatives
Carolyn Merchant (1980) — The Death of Nature	✔️✔️ foundational: nature as organism vs mechanism	(✔️) critiques capitalist modernity	(✔️) colonial science history	✔️ historical roots of “resource” concept	✔️ relational ontology (“Mother Nature”)
Imperial (2019) — new materialist feminist ecology	✔️ matter as agentic, relational	— not central	(✔️) via global food politics	— not explicit	✔️ relational practices
Feminist political ecology (2024 review)	✔️ nature-culture relationality	(✔️) critique of development & reproduction economies	✔️ strong	(✔️) via power/domination lens	✔️ grounded relational frameworks
New Materialism (Bennett, etc.)	✔️✔️ nature as lively, agentic matter	— weak economic critique	— limited	— weak	✔️ vital materialism

4. Indigenous & Relational Cosmologies (Background Literature)

(Not included in search results but fundamental to your argument.)

Author / Work	Ontology of Nature	Economics Critique	Coloniality / EJ	Critique of “Resource” Category	Relational Alternatives
Indigenous governance & relational epistemologies (e.g., Kyle Whyte, Zoe Todd, Leanne Betasamosake Simpson)	✔️✔️✔️ strongest: nature as kin, ancestor	(✔️) critique of capitalist economy	✔️✔️ very strong	✔️ collapsing “resources” into colonial category	✔️✔️ relational, reciprocal governance systems
Buen Vivir / Sumak Kawsay (Andean)	✔️ world as relational, life-centered	(✔️) critique of growth & capitalism	✔️ rooted in anti-colonial politics	✔️ resources as colonial category	✔️ life-centric relationality

⭐ Where is the Theoretical Gap? (Your Contribution)

When viewed across the matrix, the missing piece becomes clear:

No existing work explicitly combines:

A deep ontological contrast (Mother Nature vs natural resources)
A critique of neoclassical economic assumptions (individualism, property, scarcity, value)
A decolonial analysis of natural resource management
Implications for economic governance and institutional design

Most works do one or two of these well — none do all four together.

🎯 How to Use This Matrix in Your Paper / Proposal

You can add a paragraph like:

Existing literature offers rich insights into different dimensions of human–nature relations — from resource critique and extractivism to feminist relational ontologies and decolonial justice. However, as the matrix shows, these literatures remain fragmented. Political ecology critiques the concept of “natural resources” but rarely develops a positive ontology of nature; feminist and Indigenous scholarship articulate relational ontologies but seldom confront the economic assumptions underlying resource-management regimes. No existing work explicitly juxtaposes the concept of “Mother Nature” with that of “natural resources” to analyze their competing ontologies and the economic systems they reproduce. This is the conceptual and theoretical gap this paper seeks to fill.

Excerpt

Footnotes