Anthon Jason
“In our community, we have our own understanding of energy. For us, energy can mean land. Land is energy, forest is energy. Whereas for the current government, with its energy transition concept, energy is reduced to electricity. This impoverishes the meaning of energy”. A simple explanation arising from awareness of how knowledge can be polarized. How does this polarization relate to environmental justice?
This article aims to capture the ideas discussed in two discussion sessions on April 25, 2025, the second day of the Unconference entitled Polarization and Its Discontent in the Global South. The first session was a plenary session on the topic “Cross-Country Conversations on Polarization of Narratives and Environmental Justice,” moderated by Zainal Abidin Bagir (ICRS) with three speakers. The first speaker was Al Ayubi (Cerah Foundation, Jakarta), the second speaker was Ana Carolina Evangelista (ISER, Brazil), and the third speaker was Jonathan Smith (CRCS UGM, Yogyakarta). The second session was a parallel session in the form of group discussions continuing the discussion in the plenary session on the theme of Polarization and Environmental Justice in the Global South and facilitated by Samsul Maarif (CRCS UGM).
A Polarized World
The world today continues to be polarized. Humans and nature are interconnected, yet modernity and the interests of a select group have created a divide. At the outset, a group of people decided to separate themselves from nature, regarding nature as something unrelated to them. This group’s philosophy is that nature is a resource that can be utilized to the greatest extent possible for the benefit of humans. Thes groups continue to extract natural resources and cause severe environmental damage. When other groups attempt to impede this process, they are often viewed as hindering the advancement of human civilization.
Individuals who aim to prevent environmental damage are often local residents. They are often viewed as lacking in knowledge and expertise. Ultimately, they were separated from other humans who want to utilize nature. In the initial phase, humans establish a distinct separation from nature. Subsequently, they establish a distinct separation from other humans. In the initial phase, humans exploit and take advantage of nature. Subsequently, humans oppress and take advantage of their fellow humans. This phenomenon of human-nature polarization ultimately leads to a division among people themselves. This is a brief overview of the background of the theme of polarization and environmental justice, as explained by Samsul Maarif, ICRS Consortium Board Member, during the two-day unconference.
Paradoxically, research conducted by the Cerah Foundation and presented at the unconference indicates that Indonesian society is less polarized on the issue of environmental damage. This could have the possibility that the elite is consolidating their power to the point that they no longer consider the possibility of a different perspective. The absence of polarization toward the issue of environmental damage in Indonesia is likely attributable to the fact that this discourse is predominantly influenced by a select group of individuals, specifically the elites.
A Squeezed Knowledge Space, An Endangered Living Space
Meanwhile, research presented by Jonathan Smith from CRCS UGM discussed environmental polarization around narratives of green energy. The research was based on data from a participatory study with residents from 14 communities affected by geothermal energy projects in Indonesia. The Anthropocene global discourse encourages the transition of energy from fossil fuel sources, which is considered dirty and polluting the environment, to renewable energy, which is energy produced with less environmental pollution. Ironically, geothermal projects, which are seen as one type of renewable energy, have actually caused environmental damage as geothermal plants are built and operate in the living spaces of local communities.
Based on this research, Samsul Maarif, ICRS Consortium Board Member as well as a researcher who examines geothermal projects in a socio-cultural domain, argued that polarization is needed to achieve environmental justice. Polarization is needed to provide space for the presence of second opinions on geothermal projects that are considered green energy. So far, the living spaces of local communities affected by geothermal projects have been taken away without giving them space to speak. A research approach that gives space to local communities to represent their knowledge as it is, requires intellectual courage to recognize their expertise.
Through the research results to present an alternative narrative to green energy from this geothermal project, we can see polarization as a platform to oppose the hegemony of knowledge. The hegemony of knowledge can be very dangerous, especially when it is infiltrated by agencies to dominate, take advantage, and take away the rights to life of others.
Polarization, A Double-Edged Knife
So, do we need polarization? Is polarization a good or a bad thing? To answer this question, participants in the parallel session shared their opinions. First, we need to understand the definition of polarization as “us versus them” mentality. Polarization is a firm position marker, a line drawn to distinguish two poles that cannot be united. Furthermore, we must understand that all polarization has its own context.
After understanding who is on either side in a polarized discourse, we need to understand who creates this polarization and which parties benefit from it. Then we can examine how polarization works. Polarization works by shifting the narrative. For example, the narrative about geothermal as green energy and the narrative of economic development. Polarization occurs when the “us versus them” relationship has a dynamic. In the case of environmental justice, polarization is needed so that a hegemonic narrative finds an opponent, a second opinion to force an option for the good of all parties, including the environment.
However, as the other participants state, we also need to pay attention to or place limits on polarization. For example, time is crucial in cases of polarization. Polarization that is maintained over a long period of time can turn into resentment. Especially when that polarization becomes entrenched into toxic or pernicious forms. Hence, one participant quoted a famous line from Mahatma Gandhi, “Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass but learning to dance in the rain”. Because life is time, and life must go on. We need time to talk, time to get consensus, and the growth of the people needs time. So, we must learn to dance in our lives. Dancing means that we must be able to make negotiative decisions when dealing with various actors, interests, or problems in the case.
In response, Jonathan Smith shared a reflection from his research with communities affected by geothermal projects. He said that the ability to dance also involves agency and power. The people who are having the experience of being affected by geothermal projects have limited power to respond, so we have to consider that as well. How can people dance when they are tied down? They may be able to dance, but they have limited power and resources to do so. It is at this point that academics, researchers and policymakers should play a role, a role that can be difficult but is important.
Next, another participant responded with a warning. In his field of international relations, in genocide studies, polarization acts as a warning system. The next step is extermination. Therefore, we must exercise caution and remain vigilant to prevent environmental genocide.