¿Forest or Monte? Native monte as an analytical and practical category in the hills of Córdoba (Argentina)
We examine the tensions surrounding the use of the terms monte and Chaco Serrano Forest to describe the same region. Drawing on a cross-disciplinary approach that combines historical literature review with discourse analysis, we distinguish two levels of meaning: analytical categories and categories...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo revista |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Instituto de Geografía (IGUNNE)
2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.unne.edu.ar/index.php/geo/article/view/8165 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | We examine the tensions surrounding the use of the terms monte and Chaco Serrano Forest to describe the same region. Drawing on a cross-disciplinary approach that combines historical literature review with discourse analysis, we distinguish two levels of meaning: analytical categories and categories of practice.
In terms of analytical categories, while Chaco Serrano Forest prevails in academic and institutional contexts, we assess the specificity and reach of both terms in designating a single phytogeographic unit.
Our analysis reveals that monte, as a category of practice, acquires diverse meanings shaped by the everyday experiences and trajectories of local communities and development actors. These semantic variations both reflect and intensify territorial disputes, yet they also hold the potential to foster common ground.
We argue that monte, understood as a category of political practice, enables the articulation of diverse claims in defense of territory. It offers a valuable entry point for strengthening interdisciplinary dialogue and informing sustainable development policies amid ongoing environmental crises. |
|---|