Water futures, biosociality, and other-wise agency: An exploratory essay
10.7340/anuac2239-625X-2838
Quest’articolo traccia il punto di incontro delle relazioni biosociali attraverso le reti agentive dell’acqua. Nel linguaggio delle scienze umanistiche, ambientali e sociali, queste relazioni e reti sono biosociali e sacre (Meloni, Williams e Martin 2016; Mangiameli 2013). L’auto-organizzazione degli ambienti acquatici nelle relazioni con gli esseri umani è coinvolta in un processo continuo di adattamento, in parallelo con i modi umani di comprendere e accostarsi all’acqua. L’articolo immagina un atteggiamento nuovo e consapevole che possa affrontare la presenza ubiqua del fiume in maniera più rispettosa, in opposizione alle tensioni e alle provocazioni dell’epoca dell’Antropocene. Vi si afferma la necessità di sviluppare una nuova idea di sostenibilità; una idro-logica che coltivi la connettività, la capacità di adattamento e i molteplici valori dell'acqua - particolarmente evidenti tra i popoli indigeni - che esistono oltre l’isolamento del paradigma della mercificazione. Questa logica implica la necessità di riconsiderare i valori economici, ecologici, consuetudinari e ludici in maniera più equilibrata. Delineando l’acqua come un complesso flusso adattivo di relazioni interne, traverse ed esterne, l’indagine afferma la capacità e l’agentività multi-dimensionale dell'acqua col proposito di promuovere futuri acquatici biosociali più sostenibili all’interno di un ambiente geosociale.
application/pdf
2239-625X
2838
1
en
Gísli Pálsson
Anuac
Water futures, biosociality, and other-wise agency: An exploratory essay
Text.Serial.Journal
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/anuac
6
Essays
2017-07-17
2017-05-26
2017-07-17
2017-07-17
233-252
1
Gísli Pálsson
2017/07/17
10.7340/anuac2239-625X-2838
233
University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland
2239-625X
1
en
252
Water futures, biosociality, and other-wise agency: An exploratory essay
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/anuac/article/download/2838/2607
6
                                                2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252




                                                                                             SAGGI

Water futures, biosociality, and other-wise agency
An exploratory essay
Shé HAWKE
University of Sydney

Gísli PÁLSSON
University of Iceland




ABSTRACT: This article maps the confluence of biosocial relations through the agential
networks of water. In the language of the environmental humanities and social sciences,
such relations and networks are biosocial and sacralised (Meloni, Williams, Martin
2016; Mangiameli 2013). The self-organisation of aquatic environments in these rela-
tions towards humans is engaged in an ongoing process of entanglement and adapta-
tion in parallel with human understandings and approaches to water. This article imag-
ines new and conscientious behaviour that might treat the ubiquitous river more gently,
against the tensions and provocations of the Anthropocene Epoch. It argues for the de-
velopment of fresh sustainability logic; a hydro-logic that cultivates connectivity, adap-
tive capacity, and broader water values that exist beyond the containment of the com-
modification paradigm (that are particularly evident among First Nations peoples). This
logic necessarily includes a reconsideration of economic, ecological, customary and
recreational values in more balanced measure. By configuring water as a complex adap-
tive stream of intra, inter and extra-relationships, this research champions waters’
multi-dimensional capacity and agency for the purpose of advancing more sustainable
biosocial water futures within a geosocial matrix.

KEYWORDS: WATER LITERACY, CONNECTIVITY, BIOSOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY, SACRALISATION, INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIA.




This work is licensed under the Creative Commons © Shé Hawke, Gísli Pálsson
Water Futures, Biosociality, and Other-Wise Agency: An exploratory essay
2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252.
ISSN: 2239-625X - DOI: 10.7340/anuac2239-625X-2838
234                                                                 SHÉ HAWKE, GÍSLI PÁLSSON




Introductory genesis

                                        Water, was simply there in the beginning, indis-
                                        pensable, and life has made its adjustments ac-
                                        cordingly.
                                                                 Braun, Cavagnaro 19711


   In 2010 Mikhail Gorbachev former Soviet President and now a commenta-
tor for equitable life on earth, declared what too few know, that: «The United
Nations estimates that nearly 900 million people live without clean water
and 2.6 billion without proper sanitation […] This humanitarian catastrophe
has been allowed to fester for generations. We must stop it»2. Water has been
poisoned, we have been poisoned and we are the poisoners. Planet Earth is
comprised of approximately 75% water; so too the human body and most
forms of life. In the developed world, we expect it to fall freely from the gar-
den or household tap, while in other world’s people have adapted to living
without its clean and continuous flow, while still others have polluted it and
become indifferent to its value and qualities. Despite water metaphors that
saturate our living speech, water’s presence, customary and cultural value
and generative capacity, increasingly exists on the margins of consumer con-
sciousness. This article aims to vitalise trans-disciplinary debate on the
theme of aquatic sustainability and its biosocial entanglements, and dares to
ask if we can re-imagine a world of one water equitably shared and holisti-
cally appreciated through an anthropologically informed geosocial optic.
   Braun and Cavagnaro wrote, as long ago and as recently as 1971 that, «wa-
ter is the river upon which evolution has charted its course» (1971: 54). In its
unique triadic forms of gas, liquid and solid, water is the fundamental parti-
cle of all life; present in humans, non-humans, in minerals, earth and wind,
and according to First Nation Peoples, in the spirit and the intangible (Acret,
Bragg, Gordon 2007) «Visible water (blue) – such as rivers, rainfall and
aquifers – and invisible (green) water content of soil and evapotranspiration
from plants» (Groenfeldt, Schmidt 2013: 2) is present everywhere, and in the
unseen air we breathe. Its omnipotence is so great that it mobilises and con-
tains other life forms, acting as a sacred conveyer belt for all life, that is capa-
1. This article acknowledges the prescient work of Ernest Braun and David Cavagnaro, Living
Waters (1971).
2. See Mikhail Gorbachev, The Right to Water, The New York Times, July 16, 2010 (accessed
on 12/02/2010), who regularly speaks the willful damage human beings do to the planet.


2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252
WATER FUTURES, BIOSOCIALITY, AND OTHER-WISE AGENCY                                      235


ble of carrying «nearly half the known minerals without itself being altered»
(Braun, Cavagnaro 1971: 24). «As the gestational matter of our being, water
also expresses our actual responsibility and our virtual potential» (Neimanis
2009) – it is more a part of us than any thing, and, as this article suggests, it is
in conversation with other elements and beings.
   It is a tragedy that even with these facts, human aquatic irreverence may
have permanent consequences before we collectively become re-aware. De-
spite pre-Enlightenment sacralisation, water has fallen from grace in the
modern economy of human/nature relations (Dawson 2014; Wouters, Chen
2013; Hawke 2012; Barlow 2010; Gorbachev 2010; Neimanis 2009). This arti-
cle navigates our intrinsic relationship with, and scholarly critique of water
beyond purely extrinsic commoditisation frameworks, and imagines new
conditions of possibility for water futures down the temporal and spatial
complex adaptive stream.

From fixed subordinate to fluid co-ordinate
   The intentions of this article are twofold: to demystify the wonder and
troubles of water and more broadly nature, by meshing biosocial anthropol-
ogy with cross-cultural water literacy and other-wise knowledge towards a
geosocial literacy. Secondly, it untangles relations of water as an environ-
mental, cultural and economic element, ancestor and resource. It problema-
tizes solutions for the complex challenges to waters enduring and equitable
flow through increasingly muddy waters. That the hydro-logical cycle is a
complex adaptive system3, is a given. An a priori understanding of the symbi-
otic relationship between inter-system enmeshments, nature-cultures (La-
tour, 1993), and the collision between the elemental and human is assumed.
The article also seeks to disrupt existing reductionist Descartian dualisms
that misrepresent and disavow “nature as passive”, in preference to “active
culture”. It offers instead a mapping of ontological entanglement at the
biosocial level, and between other systems variously governed.
   To understand the departure from Descartes static binary system, it is
worth considering the origin of his incomplete narrative analysis of Anaxi-
mander’s (580 BCE) original source material. The Milesian philosopher con-
structed the first rendition of the dualisms, as a continuum of reciprocity and
transition. In this schema, all components are of equal power and phenom-
ena such as dry/moist, limit /without limit, male/female, and active/passive
are situated as being equally contingent on the qualities of the co-produced.

3. Ilya Prigogine (1977) originally (with Isabelle Stengers) coined Complex Adaptive Systems
Theory.

                                            2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252
236                                                                 SHÉ HAWKE, GÍSLI PÁLSSON


The idea of ongoing becoming rather than fixed being is evident in Pre-So-
cratic works such as Anaximander’s proposition that all things were indefi-
nite, boundless and in constant motion (apeiron); a necessary dynamic flux
on which all things depended, with no one component ever claiming pri-
macy. In such a schema, water was as vital as any matter or form it related to,
while also containing intrinsic value. However, over millennia man claimed
primacy and threw nature and the notion of flux into containment, with na-
ture increasingly technologized and fixed as a subordinate, both disassoci-
ated and over-used by developing human enterprise.
   This raises one of the over-arching provocations of this article: that for ac-
tual life preserving innovative change, humans (as the existing privileged ac-
tors), might be decentred, and water (and more broadly nature) reconstituted
as a central and agential force in sustainable life. What follows is a re-consid-
eration of water’s multi-dimensional currents, values, and agency. A re-map-
ping of multiple knowledges superimposed with Complex Adaptive Systems
theory (CAS), is offered as a methodology that could produce both qualitative
and quantitative results that validate the sacralised (Mangiameli 2013)
agency of water in conjunction with its utility values, that we argue could
produce more effective governance. Ethnographers and First Nations People
– as guardians of elemental knowledge (Whyte 20164; Maclean et al., 2012:
Acret, Bragg, Gordon 2007; Waters 2004) – have much to offer this aqueous
narrative cartography that enacts a timely and provocative re-reading of wa-
ter through an Indigenous «bio-respecting» lens (Waters 2004). Biodiversity
and cultural integrity are constitutive of bio-respect; reconciliation of com-
peting interests and values (Davis 1998) 5 between settler descendants and
Indigenous people are critical for a re-visioned water future.
   We advance notions of «biosocial becomings» (Ingold, Palsson 2013) and
«cross-cultural water literacy» (Hawke 2012) to generate openings to new
and hopeful hydro-logics of biosocial resilience and sustainability gover-
nance that might go some way towards protecting waters place in planetary
consciousness, as well as within its utility framework. Drawing upon Har-
away’s work (2003) on the other-than-human we address the broader issue of
cross cultural and elemental literacy that is inclusive of flora, minerals and
elements.



4. This and other papers by Whyte provide scholarship from First Nations American people.
5. See Anne Waters (2004) and Michael Davis (1998) on bio-respect and bio-prospecting. Da-
vis’ work is as prescient as the work of Braun and Cavagnaro but in a political context.


2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252
WATER FUTURES, BIOSOCIALITY, AND OTHER-WISE AGENCY                                          237


Mapping complex adaptive biosocial relations in the Anthropocene

                                                         I am the river / The river is me
                                                         Whanganui Iwi, Aotearoa/NZ6

   The challenge for the Anthropocene Epoch in which we find ourselves, we
argue, is to regain nature consciousness and develop “other-wise” cross-cul-
tural elemental literacy (Hawke 2012), to decipher the tangible and intangi-
ble conversations between humans and other agents. This nature conscious-
ness and elemental literacy is already at odds with the multiple shocks and
perturbances to nature instigated by human impact, since the “Great Accel-
eration” period of the 1950s (Steffen, Crutzen, McNeill 2007). To amend the
errors of the past as they play out in the current water and broader climate
change crisis of the Anthropocene Epoch, engaged and trans-disciplinary
thinking, and re-animated conversations with all actors seems timely. This
includes conversations with the other-than-human, and the rest of nature,
but how does such a dialogue play out? How is nature listened to? What does
nature make of our babbling evolution and diminished capacity to be with?
Must the biggest voice win?
   These are important questions to ask within our own cultural contexts and
entanglements with other cultural contexts and nature itself. It is no simple
task, but as Muecke (2007) suggests «We have ways of making them [nature]
talk and bear witness […] humans and non-humans have always been in it
together»7. Water, «companion species» (Haraway 2003) and human futures
then, are co-implicated and polyvocal at the outset. The next question is:
how does that co-implication evolve?
   In the context of this article, resilience thinking, as a pedagogical tool is
wed to sustainability and complexity theory at the biosocial level that
evolves more deeply into a geosocial literacy. For systems to thrive and re-
main dynamic they must exist within a framework of resilience, cited by
Brian Walker (2006) as, «[…] the capacity of a system to continually change
and adapt, yet remain within critical thresholds» 8. Meshing resilience think-
6. Whanganui Iwi trustee Gerrard Albert, speaks on the Whanganui River’s grant of legal sta-
tus in its own right – as a subject and legal person Te Awa Tupua, not an object ( New Zea-
land Herald 5/8/2014) www.nzherald.co.nz/wanganui-chronicle/news/article.cfm?c_id=150-
3426&objectid=11306455 and as cited in the following document: http://nz01.terabyte.-
co.nz/ots/DocumentLibrary/140805RurukuWhakatupua-TeManaOTeAwaTupua.pdf, p.5.
7. See Stephen Muecke’s provocative essay The Cassowary is Indifferent to all This (2007), in
which he invites the unruly Cassowary as representative of nature to the Interdisciplinary
Institute for the Diplomatic Negotiation among Humans and Non-Humans that locates na-
ture as a witness, author and co-director. See also Haraway 2003.
8. See Brian Walker speaking for the Stockholm Resilience Centre explaining resilience: ww-
w.stockholmresilience.org/21/research/what-is-resilience.html (accessed on 25/02/2014).

                                            2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252
238                                                                 SHÉ HAWKE, GÍSLI PÁLSSON


ing with the anthropological premise of biosociality put forward by Ingold
and Palsson (2013) fits Condit and Railsbrack’s (2005) notion of “tran-
silience” as a non-reductionist set of laws that connect different modes of
being. Palsson and Swanson (2016) more recently argue that advancing a no-
tion of «geosocialities» (the comingling of the geological and the social, and
the sensibilities involved) and drawing upon recent scholarship on «new ma-
terialism» (Lemke 2015) and «vibrant matter» (Bennett 2010), offers a trajec-
tory for thinking sustainability at intra, inter and extra relation levels. It fur-
ther expands the conceptions of agency, intimacy, and politics that have
emerged from “biosociality”:

      The geosocial at once facilitates appreciation of the mineral and draws atten-
      tion to points of contact between geology and social-cultural theory. At the
      same time, it opens up a down-to-earth form of “geopolitics” (the managing,
      and mismanaging, of geosocial realities) that exceeds classic notions of the
      term, attending to different “geological” scales, to living bodies, human and
      non-human, solid rock, and the planet itself (Palsson, Swanson 2016: 151).

   The geosocial, in this vision, of course includes water, the assembly or co-
mingling of the aquatic, material, human, and non-human. Humans in par-
ticular are engaged in webs of biosocial relations, and «may be usefully re-
garded as fluid beings, with flexible porous boundaries: they are necessarily
embedded in relations, which may be called biosocial» (Palsson in Ingold,
Palsson 2013: 39). Biosocial and geosocial entanglements are predicated pre-
cisely on active connectivity and coherence between different systems such
as nature and culture but in the context of this discussion specifically on wa-
ter and other living things, as simultaneously biosocially individuated, and
connected (Prigogine 1980).
   The Hydro-logical Cycle (see Fig. 1) is ostensibly circular with complex in-
trinsic and extrinsic relations; it follows its own logic and privileges itself as
the «omniscient narrator» (Hawke 2014: 1) arguably unworried by our re-
sponse to its oscillations and extremes. The interconnections of the cycle
create changing patterns that emerge and inform the behaviour of the sys-
tem itself. While it is a system, it does not operate as a fixed order system –
its lack of order is in fact its strengths, as with other robust complex adaptive
systems. Systems that have “co-evolved”, are most resilient when they are
dynamic and exist “on the edge of chaos” rather than in a state of fixed equi-
librium with a nucleus (Prigogine 1982).




2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252
WATER FUTURES, BIOSOCIALITY, AND OTHER-WISE AGENCY                                       239




 FIG 1: The Hydro-logical Cycle: implicated in relations with humans, land and water forms,
 more-than-human actors and interconnecting aquatic systems, weather, and catastrophe.


   Here, the river example is immediate. It is dependent on rainfall and the
other components of the hydro-logical system, as well as human and non-
human impact, such as flora, fauna, the abiotic, damming and catastrophe. In
Indigenous Australian ontology, cosmogenic Dreamtime design, ancestors
and the intangible properties of water are also part of the systems design and
governance9. Water also delivers nutriment to other stakeholders through its
seasonal patterning and aquatic architecture, promising much but distribut-
ing in tune with its own volition, and in recent times, in response to human
impact.
   This article argues that in the Hydrological Cycle or Round River as Indige-
nous Widjabul First Nation People refer to it (Hawke 2012: 240; Acret, Bragg,
Gordon 2007), there is no centre/margin mechanism, rather there is con-
stantly moving inter-relationship or co-productive connectivity within and
between all parts that appears very much in line with Anaximander’s early

9. The Dreamtime refers to Australian First Nation Aboriginal Creation Stories and Cosmo-
gony. Maori Creation stories also rely on spiritual design. Both modes of creationism are ge-
nerally under-represented in western science, politics and governance.

                                            2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252
240                                                                    SHÉ HAWKE, GÍSLI PÁLSSON


proposition of mutuality and flux rather than static opposition. In the In-
digenous Australian Creation schema (and borrowing from Bourdieu 1978),
ontological understandings of the Round River consist simultaneously of nat-
ural/ecological capital, symbolic/ancestral capital, and economic/resource
capital. Recognition of waters’ symbolic/ancestral capital may enable a
broader comprehension of waters agency and value as something other than
just consumable resource, and as co-author of Creation, and as Bird Rose
suggests, «as its own self» (2007: 18), dynamically engaged in a complex
adaptive arrangement of inter-relation.

Agential sacralisation and the chaotic
   In addition to the cross-cultural collaboration between the Widjabul First
Nations People and Rous Water of Northern NSW Australia (Acret, Bragg,
Gordon 2007), recent scholarship and practice (and case studies) from Italy
and Aotearoa further advance the notion that water is an agent in its own be-
coming with tangible and intangible values. These positions are recognised
by both Indigenous people and settler or post-colonial researchers and bod-
ies of governance. Recognition of both sacramental and utilitarian values in
water offers new opportunities for water reform governance. Waters’ agential
capacity and symbolic capital, for example, is trans-formatively rendered
through Mangiameli’s (2013) recent work on the human-aquatic relationship
in his ethnographic case study of the Kasena People of NE Ghana. Man-
giameli recognizes the people’s view that water is a sacralised entity, as well
as being a life-sustaining product. The Kasena people, readily articulate and
demonstrate a “sacralization of nature” totally embedded in the unpre-
dictable and multifactorial process through which the world takes shape […]
and in which the human is a relevant component but not the director» (Man-
giamelli 2013: 147). Mangiameli’s extensive fieldwork leads him to an astute
analysis of the generative and sacralised abiotic agency of water that decen-
tres the human as director. He writes:
      If habits are […] inserted in a flux that connects them to what they give rise to,
      on the one hand, and to what generates them, on the other, then the habits of
      water emerge from a similar spiral. […] After all, water adapts itself to the sur-
      face of the land, but at the same time modifies the surface itself (2013: 146-
      147).

  The intentional meshing of complexity theory, resilience thinking, bio-
and geosociality and “other-wise” knowledge, signifies a judicious turn in
the environmental humanities. This departure from an old paradigm of


2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252
WATER FUTURES, BIOSOCIALITY, AND OTHER-WISE AGENCY                                      241


over-use recognizes the necessary integration of natural capital and social
culture, that heralds a new era of water diplomacy and innovative, cross-
cultural hydro-logical geosociality.
   The recent case of the Whanganui River in Aotearoa/New Zealand being
granted sovereignty is a case in point. The Whanganui River is recognized
as a being, a living entity, a legal personage: «Te Awa Tupua, with its own
values, rights and voice» 10, with tangible and intangible capital, that po-
tentially situates geosociality as a new mechanism in understanding and
talking water.
   Water sovereignty and sacralisation provide hope that natures’ agency
and capital can further connect interactions between aquatic and human
agents that embrace the qualities of biological and cultural connectivity
towards sustainability and mutual respect in human and elemental inter-
relationships. As Prigogine has stated (1982: 46), the change towards this
biosocial conversation and arrangement requires «a new dialogue of man
with nature» which this article further advances through the prism of
cross cultural water literacy demonstrated in the case studies of the
Kasena of NE Ghana, The Whanganui Iwi, and the Widjabul of the North -
ern Rivers of Australia.
   In concurrence with Waldrop’s articulation of complexity (1992), and
Walker and Salt’s (2006) case studies on resilience and complexity theory,
we recognise the factor of the “edge of chaos” as problematic in the cur-
rent state of play, in the world’s rivers systems. Waldrop explains the
chaos component of the theory as follows:
      Chaos by itself doesn’t explain the structure, the coherence, the self-orga -
      nizing cohesiveness of complex systems […] This balance point called the
      edge of chaos – is where the components of a system never quite lock into
      place, and yet never quite dissolve into turbulence, either […] It is the con -
      stantly shifting battle between stagnation and anarchy […] 11.

   Resilience thinking and geosocial methodology can produce innovative
pathways in the way a variety of governing bodies (community, local,
state, federal and international) might read and approach the strategic
and respectful management of water and its broader relations. Resilience
thereby becomes part of the system and resilience thinking part of its gov-
ernance under different cultural conditions. As Groenfeldt and Schmidt
explain, «without values, governance has no referent for adjudicating
competing demands» (2013). As a pliable tool for change and reform,

10. The Whanganui River Settlement: http://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/05/ruruku-whaka-
tu- pua-te-mana-o-te-awa-tupua-upholding-the-mana-of-the-whanganui-river/
11. In this book M. Mitchell Waldrop “adapted” CAS form Prigogine’s original concept.

                                            2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252
242                                                                 SHÉ HAWKE, GÍSLI PÁLSSON


Folke et al. (2002) further argue that resilience thinking is the ground on
which to build sustainability in a world that transforms itself daily:
      Resilience for social-ecological systems, is related to (i) the magnitude of
      shock that the system can absorb and remain within a given state; (ii) the
      degree to which the system is capable of self-organisation and (iii) the de-
      gree to which the system can build capacity for learning and adaptation.
      Management can destroy or build resilience, depending on how the social-
      ecological organises itself in response to management actions(Folke et al.
      2002).

   Resilience is therefore co-related to dynamic complexity and geosocial
cognizance. Rebecca Dodder and Robert Dare (2000) articulate the advan-
tageous confluence of ideas and practice: «Dynamic complexity encom-
passes the ideas of complexity related to behavior, processes of cause and
effect, feedback, fluctuations and stability, cycles and time scales 12», that
we extend to include geosocial complexity and potency.
   The Anthropocene epoch, by its very definition, has over-drawn from
the water account and subsequently over-delivered on shock and pertur-
bance to some river systems, resulting in flawed confluences. Economic
development, greed and necessity and the results of the Great Accelera -
tion (Steffen, Crutzen, MacNeil 2007) from 1945 onwards have all played a
part, and nowhere is human impact more to blame. In recent decades a
plethora of agencies and international reports (UNESCO; Stockholm Re -
silience Centre; World Water Council and European Union Water Initiative
to name a few), have produced recommendations for the securing of better
water reform and sustainability practice. These agencies provide opportu -
nities to re-negotiate and implement inclusive amendments to policy and
practice in which equitable allocation is designed for all agents (both nat -
ural and cultural), within systems that must remain complex adaptive, dy-
namic and generative. Yet governance is itself a complex system that will
co-evolve with its agents slowly (Brondizio et al. 2016).

Learning from flawed entanglement
                                        Down the river the water of life encounters an
                                        enigma – a species that has, for the moment, for-
                                        gotten the source.
                                                                  Braun, Cavagnaro 1971

   Thinking through a geosocial and resilience matrix enables the recogni-
tion of intra, inter, and extra relational junctures of water story. Any water
form, be it a stream or a cirrus cloud, or the whole hydrological cycle, is part
of a web of relations with people and the earth, and other-than-human. As
12. See Dodder and Dare (2000) for another “adapted” or applied explanation of CAS.


2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252
WATER FUTURES, BIOSOCIALITY, AND OTHER-WISE AGENCY                                      243


discussed, the cumulative and generative systems are non-linear, diverse and
mutually beneficial to all components – or mutually destructive. The Hydro-
logical Cycle, as an enclosed mechanistic system, moves water around the
globe in the forms of vapour, liquid and solids to nourish the complexities of
planetary wellbeing dynamically. There is the same amount of water on the
planet as there ever was moving in this endless system. However, some parts
of the system have become polluted, stagnated and perturbed beyond use.
   In 2009 Maude Barlow Senior Advisor to the UN on Water claimed without
apology that the World Economic Forum had conceded that «the world is on
the edge of water bankruptcy» (2). She problematized the currency of water
by explaining that
      We are polluting massive amounts of surface and even ground water rendering
      it inaccessible to us; As a result we are over extracting our rivers to death,
      mostly for flood irrigation and to grow crops in deserts, creating more deserts
      (Barlow 2009).

   Nowhere is this more evident than in the damming of the Yangtze River
with the Three Gorges Dam in China 13. China finds itself increasingly under
scrutiny by inter-governmental agencies. This «modern water» (Linton in
Neimanis 2014) strengthens the apparatus of the state in the short term but
fails to recognise the flow on effects of over extraction and shock, as well as
the increase in unsustainable business populations that result in putrifica-
tion. For example, as Wouters and Chen (2013: 232) explain
      Recent reports highlight China’s impending water crisis which will only be ex-
      acerbated with further economic development; already 11 of China’s 31 prov-
      inces suffer from water scarcity... One recent report claims that some 28,000
      waterways have vanished from China’s maps as a result of pollution.

   Almost in contradiction to the dire state of play in the interior of the
country, China’s transboundary water management intentions reflect the
gaze of international agencies. But as Wouters and Chen (2013) have noted,
regard and intention do not always translate into effective global practice,
with China demonstrating a “soft path” to transboundary water cooperation.
      China implements the “soft-path” primarily through bilateral high level meet-
      ings and in selected multilateral forums (such as ASEAN, BRIC and SCO) in ac-
      cordance with China’s […] approach to international coexistence. While this ap-
      proach has many positive effects [upstream], the difficult challenge for down-
      stream states related to the development activities by geographically advan-
      taged upstream states, remains a “hard” problem (Wouters, Chen 2013: 241-
      242).

13. See Rivers of Life, by Australian Broadcasting Commission (2009) that details the bioso-
cial issues connected to the development of this and other dams. www.abc.net.au/tv/gu-
ide/abc1/- 201207/programs/ZY9991A001D2012-07-02T123111.htm

                                            2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252
244                                                                  SHÉ HAWKE, GÍSLI PÁLSSON


   Not unlike the Chinese situation, Australia’s Murray Darling Basin Plan
that includes the opening and shutting of weirs and dams in relation to per-
ceived needs (built on western agricultural practices arguably unsuited to the
land, waterscapes and weather patterns) also conducted simulations that fell
short of actualities. The extreme drought of 2006-2007, for example, was not
anticipated by the Murray Darling Basin Authority; simulations and projec-
tions failed, despite a similar episode being on the record for 1914 14. The so-
phisticated regulation of flows through pipelinisation (Hawke 2014) of the
Murray Darling Basin to feed introduced crops presents no solution in such
an erratic land and waterscape. Realistic cognizance of actual resource sup-
ply and associated values must be embedded in economic development and
political governance. Over-drawing from the aquatic account without real
possibility of consistent replenishment lends itself to the water bankruptcy
that Barlow speaks of, and begs the questions: How water literate are we and
can we learn from this? We do indeed stand at the precipice.
      Man is only one of the many families of living things […] In view of the devas -
      tating impact he has had on the ecosphere […] nature may consider him an ex-
      periment as yet unproved (Braun, Cavagnaro 1971: 24).

   It is perhaps here on this catastrophic cascade that a “conversation” be-
tween the natural aquatic world and the cultural world could take place so
that the ecological, economic and cultural considerations of all stakeholders,
including nature, can be held in more constructive alignment. But at this
meeting place called the river, who will be the interlocutor? How does one
talk or listen to a river?

Dynamic water innovation and cross-cultural geosocial literacy

                                         Like the habitus, which is a system of structured
                                         and structuring dispositions (Bourdieu 1972) the
                                         flow of water is moulded by those external condi-
                                         tions that it contributes to moulding at the same
                                         time.
                                                                      Mangiameli 2013: 148

   There is some intelligent hope for an enriched and diverse understanding
of waters agency, and for its future in many currents of the world. Both the
challenge and the solution for the Anthropocene epoch is to grow the right
thinking, right action, gratitude and a spirit of hospitality ... water as re-
source, life source, gift and ancestor that narrates and directs «our passage
14. See www.mdba.gov.au/about-basin/basin-environment/challenges-issues


2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252
WATER FUTURES, BIOSOCIALITY, AND OTHER-WISE AGENCY                                     245


through the world and the world through us» (Nancy 2011: 83). This will in-
volve thinking about water beyond the purely utilitarian paradigm in which
it is currently framed. It means reading water through a different lens, to be-
come water literate through “other-wise” knowledges, sensibilities and foci,
such as those that First Nations people offer.
    Some cultures revere water as a canonical text written by multiple au-
thors: human and more-than-human. Could the «governments, corporate
think tanks, [consumers] and multilateral agencies» of the developed world
read water more broadly, and consider as Ariel Salleh (2008) does, «Why
women [are] under-represented in climate change negotiations at local, na-
tional and international levels?» 15 As ethnographic studies show world-wide,
Indigenes and women (who have historically imprinted the smallest carbon
footprint) have long been the guardians of water but were the first to become
disenfranchised and remain under-represented in historical literature.
Veronica Strang puts it squarely:
      A historical analysis of water resource management […] reveals a consistent
      pattern of lost agency and ownership […] individuals have gone from sharing
      relatively equal involvement in the management of water through stages of dis-
      enfranchisement, first of women, and gradually the rest of the population.
      (Strang 2004: 36)

   Decentering the dominant human, and identifying water as the fulcrum
and interlocutor it is, seems timely yet challenging. How do we participate in
broadening the outlook of policy makers and everyday citizen consumers?
Cross-cultural water literacy that is cognizant of “other-wise” pedagogical
agency, we argue, constitutes part of the solution. Perhaps as a means of
contributing to the best adaptive practices and trans/resilience based poli-
cies, and attendant problematic human relations, The United Nations,
through UNESCO declared 2013 as The International Year of Water Coopera-
tion. While the language of the environmental humanities is not evident in
UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova’s launch speech, sincere intention
and hope for better practice, is. She says:
      We need new forms of water diplomacy – to integrate multiple perspectives and
      resolve problems in ways that are informed by science and technology and that
      favor inter-cultural dialogue16.

   What underpins an understanding of international water diplomacy, eq-
uity, values and governance, is a fundamental respect for water, a reverence
in fact, as Braun and Cavagnaro gently instructed in 1971, and in part, as
Mangiameli reports from the Kasena people’s experience of water relations
15. Salleh (2008) raises sex/gendered/racial questions about Anthropocene accounting.
16. Irina Bokova speaking at the launch of The International Year of Water Diplomacy. ww-
w.unesco.org /new/en/media-services/single-view.

                                            2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252
246                                                                SHÉ HAWKE, GÍSLI PÁLSSON


and the collapsing of nature-cultures into one sacralized entity with porous
intangible borders. This is an example of cross-cultural water literacy at its
best. Add gendered and Elder accounting to the equation and more produc-
tive solutions emerge.
   To understand elemental reverence, several scholars and international in-
ter-agencies have turned to First Nation People’s for tutelage. Cross-cultural
elemental literacy may offer a new spring of hope in resolving and sustaining
the dynamic complexity and ongoing resilience needed in river systems and
with associated actors, such as humans, and non-humans. In Australia this is
evident in the far north of New South Wales, in an area called the Northern
Rivers, where the local First Nation People, called the Widjabul, have entered
into a cross-cultural and ecological dialogue with the local water authority
Rous Water, using the rivers as the meeting place 17. What is evident in this
unique Australian example is a thorough bilingual and cross-cultural en-
gagement with water, through the tripartite lens of cultural, ecological and
economic value and capital, provided by indigenes and settler descendants –
together. As Cram and Phillips (2012) suggest, research and governance
through a «community-up» understanding of values constitutes best practice
in cross-cultural policy making, increasingly evident in New
Zealand/Aotearoa18. This figuration and implementation of values associated
governance and connectivity provides the all-important referent for policy
development as noted also by Groenfeldt and Schmidt (2013). Given that
First Nation People’s in Australia managed all resources without the ex-
tremes of western perturbance until 200 years ago (admittedly for a smaller
population), it makes sense for everyday water users, policy makers and local
governments to enlist Indigenous expertise, and to access, as is culturally ap-
propriate, a very different pedagogy and ontology in which the respected
tangible and intangible properties of water are understood. Implicit in In-
digenous/First Nations pedagogy and ontology of water and being, is a ver-
sion of Complex Adaptive Systems that we have argued is productively en-
tangled with elemental literacy at the bio and geosocial level.

Conclusions
   There is some hope in the recent advancement in governance and g/local
agencies who exhibit a growing consciousness of Indigenous/First Nations
values and approaches on which dynamic complexity and new and innova-
tive governance and transboundary interaction relies. For example, Program
Manager of the Aboriginal Water Initiative at the New South Wales Office of
17. See Hawke (2012) for an extensive discussion on this unique pedagogical exchange and
other success that use the river as an interlocutor and arbiter.
18. See also Bradley Moggridge from The Aboriginal Water Initiative, NSW Office of Water,
Department of Primary Industries. www.dpi.nsw.gov.au on Indigenous Water Values.


2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252
WATER FUTURES, BIOSOCIALITY, AND OTHER-WISE AGENCY                                          247


Water, Bradley Moggridge is actively engaged in “water yarning” and man-
agement that has positively affected government policy in Australia:
      Governments have committed to include Indigenous representation in water
      planning; to incorporate Indigenous social, spiritual and customary objectives
      and strategies; and to take account of possible existence of native title rights to
      water in water resource planning and management (Maclean et al. 2012: viii).

    The recent world-leading case of the Whanganui River Settlement in
Aotearoa (New Zealand), receiving legal status as an entity, also reflects a
sustainable and respectful bend in the river, a river that owns itself – is itself.
Cognizance of the multiple values and meanings of natural and symbolic
capital such as water, and application in practice requires thinking outside of
western despair narratives and containment theories, for intact resilient and
sustainable nature-culture futures to spawn water agency further. For the
cultural imaginary to keep shifting in favour of water, a new criterion is re-
quired, to re-engage with water and its geosocial relations, to re-member
water, to play with water, to make a love of water second nature, to develop
sustainability pedagogy and policy, and read water differently in everyday
life.
    In 1971, Braun and Cavagnaro queried people’s loss of water conscious-
ness, reverence and real life experience with the river. And so it has followed
to some degree. Yet, re-incorporation of water in the public imagination via
the methods discussed in this article, may enable a gentler hand on water’s
co-present future down the complex adaptive stream and contribute to a new
water logic that is more sustainable and geosocially underpinned.
    Our intention in this article has been to draw on contributions to a new
sustainability paradigm, through CAS, resilience and geosocial literacy, but
not to foreclose that discussion. By utilizing tools of the past, to a new gen-
erative purpose that intersects with trans-disciplinary research into decen-
tring the human in the habitus, field and agency of water and its co-rela-
tions, this article has aimed to appraise the tangible and intangible authors
of the waterscape. As Mangiameli suggests, «The world writes itself […]»
(2013: 145) but we would add, that it is a complex adaptive polymorphous
text, in which water is an omniscient narrator.

Afterword
   Recent studies suggest that melting ice sheets are changing the distribu-
tion of weight on Earth. As a result of this redistribution, it seems, the planet
teeters in a new fashion on its polar axis (Adikhari, Ivins 2016). The planet’s
water also falls and flows differently now. Rivers choke, pollutants over-
whelm, and the rain that the hydrological cycle issues, is often acidic and ra-


                                             2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252
248                                                             SHÉ HAWKE, GÍSLI PÁLSSON


dioactive and falling in different patterns and parts of the world, effecting
food production and living practices worldwide as recent and ongoing events
at Fukushima tragically demonstrates19. We rage at its absence and random
abundance as the erratic partner it has become in all that we do. We expect
it, yet often have too little regard for its wellbeing while demanding its sup-
port for our lives, this primordial witness to all becoming, and narrator of its
own story, and ours; and we are only semi-literate.




19. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/08/130807-fukushima-radioac-
tive-wa ter-leak/ (accessed on 22/09/2015).


2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252
WATER FUTURES, BIOSOCIALITY, AND OTHER-WISE AGENCY                                     249



REFERENCES

Adhikari, Surendra, Erik R. Ivins, 2016, Climate-Driven Polar Motion: 2003-2015.
     Science Advances, 8; 2.
Barlow, Maude, 2009, Notes for the Opening Keynote, Australian Water Summit. SA,
     Australia.
Barlow, Maude, 2009, The blue covenant. The global water crisis and the coming battle
     for the right to water, London, Earthscan Publications.
Bennett, Jane, 2010, Vibrant matter. A political ecology of things, Durham, NC, Duke
     University Press.
Bird Rose, Deborah, 2007, Justice and longing, in Freshwater. New perspectives on wa-
      ter in Australia, Emily Potter et al., eds, Melbourne, Melbourne University
      Press.
Bokova, Irina, 2013, UNESCO Makes the Case for Water Diplomacy, Launch of The
     International Year of Water Diplomacy. www.unesco.org/new/en/media-servic-
     es/single-view, (accessed on 01/03/13).
Bourdieu, Pierre, 1977, Outline of a Theory of Practice, translation by Richard Nice,
     Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Bragg, Elizabeth, Anthony Acret, Roy C. Gordon, eds, 2007, The water walk at Emi-
     grant Creek Dam: A users guide to the far North Coast Water Cycle, Lismore,
     NSW, Rous Water.
Brondizio, Eduardo S. et al., 2016, Re-conceptualizing the Anthropocene: A Call for
     Collaboration, Global Environmental Change, (in press).
Braun, Ernest, David Cavagnaro, 1971, Living water, California, American West Pub-
     lishing Company.
Cram, Fiona, Hazel Phillips, 2012, Claiming Interstitial Space for Multicultural,
     Transdisciplinary Research Through Community-up Values, International
     Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies, 5, 2: 36-49.
Davis, Michael, 1998, Australian Parliamentary Research Papers, No. 17, Science,
     Technology and Environment Resources Group, Canberra, Australia, 29th June.
Dodder, Rebecca, Robert Dare, 2000, Complex Adaptive Systems and Complexity
    Theory: Inter-Related Knowledge Domains, ESD.83: Research Seminar in Engi-
    neering Systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Folke, Carl, Steve Carpenter, Thomas Elmquist, Lance Gunderson, C.S. Holling, Brian
      Walker, 2002, Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Ca-
      pacity in a World of Transformations, Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environ-
      ment, 31, no. 5, 437-440.
Groenfeldt, David, Jeremy J. Schmidt, 2013, Ethics and Water Governance, Ecology
     and Society, 18, 1.

                                            2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252
250                                                              SHÉ HAWKE, GÍSLI PÁLSSON


Haraway, Donna, 2003, The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people, and signifi-
     cant otherness, Chicago, Prickly-Paradigm Press.
Hawke Shé M., 2012, Water Literacy: An “Other Wise”, Active and Cross-Cultural
    Approach to Pedagogy, Sustainability and Human Rights, Continuum: Journal
    Of Media and Cultural Studies, 26, 2: 235-247.
Hawke, Shé, 2014, Aquamorphia: Falling for water, Carindale, Interactive Publica-
    tions.
Holland, John H., 1994, Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and
     chaos, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Ingold, Tim, Gísli Palsson, eds, 2013, Biosocial becomings: Integrating social and bio-
     logical anthropology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Lemke, Thomas, 2015, New Materialisms: Foucault and the “Government of
    Things”, Theory, Culture & Society, 32, 4: 3-25.
Levin, Simon, 1998, Ecosystems and the Biosphere as Complex Adaptive Systems,
     Ecosystems, 1, 5: 431-436.
Latour, Bruno, 1993, We have never been modern, Catherine Porter, trans, Cambridge,
     Massachusetts, Cambridge University Press.
Maclean, Kirsten, Rosalind H. Bark, Bradley Moggridge, Sue E. Jackson, Carmel
     Pollino, 2012, Ngemba Water Values and Interests Ngemba Old Mission Bill-
     abong and Brewarrina Aboriginal Fish Traps (Baiame’s Nguunhu), Canberra,
     CSIRO.
Mangiameli, Gaetano, 2013, The Habits of Water: Marginality and the Sacrilization
    of Non-Humans in North Eastern Ghana, in Biosocial becomings: Integrating
    social and biological anthropology, Tim Ingold, Gísli Palsson, eds, Cambridge,
    Cambridge University Press: 145-161.
Meloni, Maurizio, Simon J. Williams, Paul Martin, eds, 2016, Biosocial matters: Re-
     thinking sociology-biology relations in the twenty-first century, Sociological Re-
     view monograph, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell.
Maori Law Review, 2014, The Whanganui River Settlement, http://maorilawreview.-
     co.nz/2014/05/ruruku-whakatupua-te-mana-o-te-awa-tupua-upholding-the-
     mana-of-the-whanganui-river/.
Muecke, Stephen, 2007, The Cassowary is Indifferent to all This, Rhizomes, 15: 1-5.
Nancy, Jean Luc, 2011, L’image: mimesis et methexis, in Penser l’image, Emmanuel Al-
     loa, ed, Paris, Les presses du réel.
Neimanis, Astrida, 2014, Alongside the Right to Water: A posthumanist feminist
    imaginary, Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 5, 1: 5-24.
Neimanis, Astrida, 2009, Bodies of Water, Human Rights and Hydrocommons, Topia,
    21: 161-182.



2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252
WATER FUTURES, BIOSOCIALITY, AND OTHER-WISE AGENCY                                     251


Palsson, Gísli, et al., 2013, Reconceptualizing the “Anthropos” in the Anthropocene:
      Integrating the Social Sciences and Humanities in Global Environmental
      Change Research, Environmental Science & Policy, 28: 3-13.
Palsson, Gísli, Heather Anne Swanson, 2016 Down to Earth: Geosocialities and
      Geopolitics, Environmental Humanities 8, 2: 149-171.
Prigogine, Ilya, 1980, From being to becoming: Time and complexity in the physical sci-
      ences, San Francisco, W. H. Freeman and Co.
Prigogine, Ilya, 1977, Order through Fluctuations: Self-Organization and Social Sys-
      tem, in Evolution and consciousness: Human systems in transition, Erich Jatsch,
      Conrad H. Waddington, eds, London, Addison-Wesley.
Salleh, Ariel, 2008, Climate Change – And the Other Footprint, The commoner, 13:
      103-112.
Steffen, Will, et al., 2011, The Anthropocene: From Global Change to Planetary Stew-
      ardship, Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, 40, 7: 739-761.
Steffen, Will, Paul J. Crutzen, John R. McNeill, 2007, The Anthropocene: Are Humans
      Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature, Ambio, December: 614-621.
Stockholm Resilience Centre, What is Resilience? An Introduction to social-ecological
      research, www.stockholmresilience.su.se, (accessed on 17/12/2013).
Strang, Veronica, 2004, The meaning of water, Oxford, New York, Berg.
Ruruku Whakatupua Te Mana O Te Awa Tupua, http://nz01.terabyte.co.nz/ots/Docu-
      mentLibrary/140805RurukuWhakatupua-TeManaOTeAwaTupua.pdf (accessed on 14
      /12/2015).
UNESCO, 2013, UNESCO Water E-Newsletter No. 260: The Hydrological Cycle,
      http://www.unesco.org/water/news/newsletter/260.shtml (accessed on 14/01/2013).
Waldrop, Mitchel M., 1992, Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and
      chaos, London, New York, Toronto, Sydney, Simon and Schuster.
Walker, Brian, David Salt, 2006, Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in
      a changing world, Washington, London, Island Press.
Waters, Anne, 2004, Global Indigenous Research Contexts for Bio-Prospecting: Sacred
      Collisions of Ethnobotany, Diversity Genetics, Intellectual Property Law, Sover-
      eign Rights, and Public Interest Pharmaceuticals, American Philosophical Asso-
      ciation Newsletter on Indigenous Philosophy, 4, 1, www.apaonline.org/resource/c-
      ollection/13B1F8E6-0142-45FD-A626-9C4271DC6F62/American_IndiansV04n-
      1.pdf.
Wouters, Patricia, Huiping Chen, 2013, China’s “Soft-Path” to Transboundary Water
      Cooperation Examined in the Light of Two UN Global Water Conventions – Ex-
      ploring the “Chinese Way”, Water Law, 25, 22, http://ssrn.com/abstract=23-
      59819.
Whyte, Kyle Powys, 2016, Indigenous Experience, Environmental Justice and Settler
      Colonialism, in Nature and Experience: Phenomenology and the Environment,
      Bryan Bannon, ed, Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield.




                                            2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252
                                          2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252




 Shé HAWKE is an interdisciplinary scholar, poet and editor from the University of
 Sydney, Department of Gender and Cultural Studies. Her research focus is the cur-
 rency of water as it extends into multidisciplinary trajectories. In 2016 she was the
 Bley Stein Professorial Fellow at the Arava Institute of Environmental Science in
 Israel, lecturing on Cross Cultural Trans Boundary Sacred Ecologies of Water. She
 later presented at the Ludics Seminar Series, Harvard University USA, on The Play
 of Water. Her most recent book Aquamorphia: Falling for Water (Interactive Press)
 appeared in 2014 and is currently being translated into Greek. She lives between
 South Eastern Australia and Northern Italy.
 she.hawke@yahoo.com.au
 Gísli PÁLSSON is Professor of Anthropology at the University of Iceland. He has writ-
 ten extensively on a variety of issues, including human-environmental relations,
 biomedicine, and the social context of genomics. He has done fieldwork in Iceland,
 the Republic of Cape Verde, the Canadian Arctic, and the Virgin Islands. His most
 recent books are Anthropology and the New Genetics (2007); Biosocial Becomings:
 Integrating Social and Biological Anthropology (co-edited with Tim Ingold, 2013),
 Nature, Culture, and Society: Anthropological Perspectives on Life (2015), Can Science
 Resolve the Nature/Nurture Debate? (co-authored with Margaret Lock, 2016), and
 Hans Jonathan: The Man Who Stole Himself (2016).
 gpals@hi.is




This work is licensed under the Creative Commons © Shé Hawke, Gísli Pálsson
Water Futures, Biosociality, and Other-Wise Agency: An exploratory essay
2017 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 6, N° 1, GIUGNO 2017: 233-252.
ISSN: 2239-625X - DOI: 10.7340/anuac2239-625X-2838
