<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:creator>Boyden, Michael</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2026</dc:date>
  <dc:description xmlns:ns0="xml" ns0:lang="en">This review essay interrogates the conceptual foundations of sustainability dis-&#13;
course by examining three recent monographs in American literary studies: Michelle Neely’s&#13;
Against Sustainability (2020), Abby Goode’s Agrotopias (2022), and Mary Kuhn’s The Garden Politic&#13;
(2023). While contemporary sustainability rhetoric is often dismissed as co-opted by corporate&#13;
and institutional interests, these studies collectively seek to recover alternative genealogies of&#13;
sustainable thought rooted in early and nineteenth-century American literature. Drawing on&#13;
Reinhart Koselleck’s conceptual history, the essay situates sustainability alongside other mod-&#13;
ern collective singulars—abstract, future-oriented terms such as progress and history—to reveal&#13;
its ideological valences and vulnerability to politicization. Through their distinct yet intersect-&#13;
ing analyses of sustainability, agrarianism, and botany, Neely, Goode, and Kuhn expose how&#13;
environmental imaginaries in the American tradition have been entwined with racialized,&#13;
gendered, and class-based hierarchies, while also recuperating counterdiscourses grounded&#13;
in reciprocity, minimalism, and collectivity. The essay foregrounds these authors’ shared turn&#13;
toward Indigenous studies as a vital framework for reorienting sustainability politics. By engag-&#13;
ing Indigenous epistemologies that emphasize relationality and embodied knowledge, they&#13;
challenge the liberal individualism underlying mainstream environmental thought. Yet the&#13;
essay also cautions that Indigeneity, like sustainability itself, might come to function as a Kosel-&#13;
leckian collective singular—an inherently ambiguous, globally circulating category that risks&#13;
idealization even as it offers transformative critique. Ultimately, the essay proposes a renewed&#13;
historical ontology attentive to insights from Indigenous studies as a means of reinvigorating&#13;
the political potential of sustainability discourse.</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>https://folia.unifr.ch/global/documents/336466</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://folia.unifr.ch/documents/336466/files/465boyden_0.pdf</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1215/22011919-12383906</dc:relation>
  <dc:relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/issn/2201-1919</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</dc:rights>
  <dc:rights>CC BY-NC-ND</dc:rights>
  <dc:source>Environmental Humanities. - Duke University Press. - 2026, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 465-478</dc:source>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns1="xml" ns1:lang="en">sustainability discourse</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns2="xml" ns2:lang="en">Indigeneity</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns3="xml" ns3:lang="en">historical semantics</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns4="xml" ns4:lang="en">American literature</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>info:eu-repo/classification/udc/82</dc:subject>
  <dc:title xmlns:ns5="xml" ns5:lang="en">Indigenous Sustainabilities as Analytic and Identity</dc:title>
  <dc:type>http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>
