I am wondering how the book's central concept, "landscapes of power," can be used to think about energy and infrastructural projects outside the Navajo context? The four modalities of power that make up this landscape are deeply influenced by your ethnographic data, and throughout the book you emphasize the need to pay attention to the particularities of places and communities. Thus, I would surmise that other landscapes of power would consist of different configurations of modalities of power? If so, how would you advise research into these other landscapes? What would should scholars pay attention to?
What motivated the structure of the book and the use of the interludes in particular? I'd like to learn more about the decision to include them as interludes. What was the idea behind these moments of reflection that both supplement and bring a brief pause to the argument?
How has the book been received among the communities that you work with? What have been the consequences, if any, for those actors and organizations who were featured in your analysis?
What recommendations do you have for studying vulnerable populations? What should be the focus and of what should one be careful, specifically?
What would you say makes the Dine and Navajo communities particularly vulnerable to government exploitation by green jobs and what would you say are some appropriate solutions to the foregoing as particularly related to the concept of the 'double whammy’ or the 'double bind'?
How are, do you believe, households vulnerable to policies surrounding transformations of governance in weatherization and construction practices (if known)?