I found The Extractive Zone to be an intensely frustrating book. the main thesis is that extractivism is premised on a homogenizing ocular viewpoint which is unable to flatten or exterminate the submerged heterogeneous alternative perspectives imagined and enacted by Indigenous and Afro-American communities and activists. even though i agree with aspects of this thesis and the argument as laid out here, i found many of the author's concepts and analytic moves to be not explained adequately or unpacked with clarity. it is a kind of academic style which surely i fall into frequently - *telling* the reader rather than *showing* them. it makes the argument less convincing - i found myself energized by many of the situations, texts, and art described by Gomez-Barris, but distrustful of or in disagreement with the analysis the author provides.
There are three reasons for my misgivings. First, part of it is certainly due to my own suspicion of both heterogeneity and phenomenology as adequate tools for our contemporary moment (let alone gestures towards ecotourism and anarchism alongside each other???). There are moments and even large swaths of the book that seem to fall into a rather banal vitalism, which i found difficult to distinguish from (for example) either the new materialisms or the new age settler appropriations under critique. A second disjuncture is just a feeling that we really need a very careful unpacking of the stakes and significance of the specificity of a decolonial queer femme method/critique. if the latter urges us to take into account "the complexity [and complexity is a frequent word in this book] of social ecologies and material alternatives proposed and proliferated by artists, activists, movements, submerged theorists, and cultural producers", then to be entirely honest, I was expecting a far more complex analysis! Finally, I just feel like there's a lot of playing fast and loose with concepts. For example, extractive capitalism, racial capitalism, colonial capitalism, neoliberal capitalism, neoliberal colonialism, etc are used rather interchangeably, which, without a marxist core (a la Iyko Day's Alien Capital, for example), results in a loss of precision at times. Are these really isomorphic concepts or interlocking processes, or are they internally complex?
I will say that i still very much am glad i read this book. to put a very fine grained point on it, i absolutely adore the frequency with which Gomez-Barris uses the concept of "perforation" to describe what submerged perspectives do to the extractive zone. and, finally, my misgivings could be tied to the situatedness of my own "perspective" and its historical-ideological construction. still, i could not help but feel a bit disappointed.