22 Role of Ecological Anthropologists in the Debate of Environmentalism

Ajeet Jaiswal

epgp books

 

 

 

Contents:

    1.      Introduction:

2.      Anthropological Engagement with Environmentalism

3.      The New Ecological Anthropology

4.      Leading Figures of Ecological Anthropologist and its role on Environmentalism

4.1 Malthus, Thomas R. (1766-1834)

4.2 Steward, Julian (1902-1972)

4.3 White, Leslie (1900-1975)

4.4 Harris, Marvin (1927-2001)

4.5 Rappaport, Roy A. (1926-1997)

4.6 Vayda, Andrew P.

4.7 Netting, Robert McC. (1934-1995)

4.8 Conklin, Harold (1926- )

4.9 Moran, Emilio F.

4.10   Ellen, Roy F. (1947- )

4.11   Balée, William (1954- )

5.      Principal Concepts of Debate in Ecological Anthropology:

6.      Summary

    Learning objectives:

  • The course provides introduction information about Role of Ecological Anthropologists in the Debate of Environmentalism
  • It includes the Basic Concept of New Ecological Anthropology and view of leading Ecological Anthropologist on Environmentalism
  • The study of this module also enables the students at postgraduate level to understand Principal Concepts of Debate in Ecological Anthropology

    1.  Introduction:

 

Recent years have witnessed the rapid proliferation and growth of local, national, and transnational environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), national bureaucracies concerned with environmental management, and transnational institutions charged with implementing various forms of global environmental governance, in which new forms of agency are being invented and contested against both established and newly reconfigured structures of domination. If ever there was a rich site of cultural production, it is in the domain of contemporary environmentalism: a whole new discursive regime is emerging and giving shape to the relationships between and among natures, nations, movements, individuals, and institutions. (Smith, 1994).

 

Both this proliferation and recent theoretical trends within the discipline have contributed to a dramatic up-surge in interest among anthropologists in analyzing this phenomenon. Scores of anthropologists are working and publishing in this area, (Milton, 1993). There are good reasons for anthropologists to be concerned with environmental policy: it not only affects the land and resources that people depend on for their livelihoods but also has major implications for social justice and human health.

 

2.  Anthropological Engagement with Environmentalism

 

The recent trend toward anthropological engagement with environmentalism was not at all inevitable. Rather, it is the result of a series of particular historical contingencies, both practical and theoretical. A brief consideration of some of these with two observations (Moran, 1999). First, there is a rather sharp discontinuity between the ecological anthropology of the 1960s and early 1970s and what some are calling the ‘‘environmental anthropology’’ of the present. Drawing its in-sights primarily from the field of ecology, the former is characterized by a persistent interest in localized adaptations to specific ecosystems and by an abiding scientism: to the extent that cultural or ideational factors enter into analyses of this sort, they are viewed primarily with respect to their adaptive significance. The latter draws its insights from a range of sources: poststructuralist social and cultural theory, political economy, and recent explorations of transnationalism and globalization, among others. Contemporary environmental anthropology is therefore more alert to issues of power and inequality, to the contingency of cultural and historical formations, to the significance of regimes of knowledge production, and to the importance of the acceleration of translocal processes. With the exception of a few individuals, there is very little overlap between those who played a role in the ecological anthropology of the past and those who are participating in the environmental anthropology of the present (Rappaport, 1993).

 

Second, relative to those in other disciplines, anthropologists have come rather late to the study of environmental movements (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982). In fields such as political science and sociology, the study of environmental movements has a rather long history; the extensive literature on ‘‘new social movements’’ (Offe, 1985) and ‘‘environmental sociology’’ (Dunlap and Catton, 1979) is testimony to this fact. In assessing what lies behind the rather striking growth in interest in environmentalism among anthropologists, researcher would cite three factors. The first is simply the more general trajectory of growth in environmental scholarship across a wide range of disciplines, a process which accelerated in the late 1980s. Indeed, the past decade has witnessed a remarkable florescence in environmental scholarship and the emergence or growth of a host of new sub-disciplines: environmental history, environmental ethics, environmental economics, environmental law, environmental security, and political ecology, to name just a few. To the extent that anthropologists have developed an interest in environmentalism, then, we are participating in a larger, transdisciplinary process. One of the things that makes the current moment so promising is the degree to which scholars from a range of disciplines—geography, political science, history, legal studies, science and technology studies, media studies, and others—are engaged in projects that converge on an interest in environmentalism. This is a period with great potential for building rich transdisciplinary intersections, and many anthropologists appear to be doing that. One might go so far as to claim that, in the study of environmentalism at least, the boundaries between disciplines are eroding to a degree not seen before. A second factor leading to the present anthropological interest in environmentalism is the simple fact that so many of us have witnessed the emergence (or arrival) of environmental movements at our field sites. Environmental NGOs have become highly visible players in the terrain that we once thought we could claim as our own—the rural/remote community. As this has occurred, we have seen local communities mobilize or adopt elements of transnational environmental discourse in ways we had not witnessed before (Turner, 1991; Fisher, 1997). A third element that has engendered an interest in environmentalism among anthropologists has been a series of recent theoretical trends both within our discipline and beyond. This is a rather complicated scenario, with a considerable degree of overlap between various areas of theoretical and empirical focus. Most notable, perhaps, has been the trend since the mid-1980s toward what Marcus and Fischer refer to as ‘‘the repatriation of anthropology as cultural critique’’ (1986). Uncomfortable with the way researcher see otherness essentialized in indigenous rights campaigns, acculturative processes elided in an effort to stress the authenticity of indigenous peoples, and concepts such as ‘‘wilderness’’ deployed in environmentalist campaigns, researcher have taken it as our task to provide critical commentary.

 

On the face of it, critiques such as this may not appear to be very good examples of ‘‘repatriation,’’ given that they so often focus on movements occurring in decidedly non-Western contexts. However, such studies are often premised on the assumption that the forms of representation which social movements partake of incorporate discursive elements that are derived from Western/metropolitan contexts and therefore not truly autochthonous. That the messages deployed by these movements are often communicated to Western audiences by Western environmental organizations only serves to reinforce this assumption. More significant than Marcus and Fischer’s call for the repatriation of anthropology have been a series of insights into the intersections of discourse/power/ knowledge (Foucault, 1972, 1980). Particularly significant for the present discussion have been insights derived from Foucault’s discussions of governmentality (1991) and bio-power (1980). The ways in which these insights have been refracted into other concerns is an important part of the story of our engagement with environmentalism.

 

One could point to a number of other theoretical trends that have been of significance in contributing to our present interest in environmentalism. Of central importance have been a number of innovative examinations of the phenomenon of resistance (Gaventa, 1980; Comaroff, 1985; Scott, 1985; Ong, 1987; Guha, 1989). Equally influential has been the work of a number of writers interested in theorizing nature (Haraway, 1991; Rabinow, 1992; Strathern, 1992; Beck, Giddens and Lash, 1994; Cronon, 1995; Escobar, 1996); much of this work is premised on the idea that any attempt to understand human interventions into nature must begin with an effort to rethink the terms by which we have conventionally described how we place ourselves or are placed within or outside it. Allied with this has been the emerging field of science studies, a broad effort to theorize the bases upon which we presume to know about nature in the first place (Latour and Woolgar, 1979; Haraway, 1989, 1994; Franklin, 1995; Rabinow, 1996); this work has important implications for our thinking about ecology, environmental science, and other fields concerned with the production of scientific knowledge about the planet. Also of importance in contributing to our interest in environmentalism has been the work of a series of writers interested in critical examinations of contemporary discourses of development (Parajuli, 1991; Pigg, 1992; Sachs 1992; Ferguson, 1994; Escobar, 1995); this work has been particularly influential in demonstrating how large institutions such as the World Bank can have a transformative effect on the discursive contours of the issues they are designed to address and how by creating certain kinds of subjects they lay the groundwork for their own interventions.

 

Efforts to understand the phenomenon of globalization and the forms of articulation between ‘‘the local’’ and globalizing processes (Featherstone, 1990, Han-nerz 1996) have also been of significance. Feminist theory, particularly a series of debates around issues of feminism, essentialism, and Third World women/ women of color (Hooks, 1984; Diamond and Ornstein, 1990; Jackson, 1993; Carney, 1993; Carlassare, 1994; Sturgeon, 1997), has infused recent discussions of indigenous peoples and indigenous rights movements (Lattas, 1993; Jackson, 1995; Beckett and Mato, 1996) that intersect with environmentalism in numerous ways. Much more diffuse though no less important has been the influence of cultural studies (Grossberg et al., 1992; During, 1993); to the extent that environmentalism today is a rich site of cultural production, it is fertile ground for analyses of this sort (Slack and Berland, 1994).

 

The attempt to address the relationship between representation, knowledge making, subject making, and domination in postcolonial theory (Guha and Spivak, 1988; Williams and Chrisman, 1994) has been equally significant, particularly in showing how the ‘‘Third World’’—the site of many forms of environmental intervention—continues to be authored and scripted in terms of Northern forms of representation (Escobar, 1995; Sturgeon, 1997).

 

3. The New Ecological Anthropology

 

Older ecologies have been remiss in the narrowness of their spatial and temporal horizons, their functionalist assumptions, and their apolitical character. Suspending functionalist assumptions and an emphasis upon homeostasis, “the new ecological anthropology” is located at the intersection of global, national, regional, and local systems, studying the outcome of the interaction of multiple levels and multiple factors. It blends theoretical and empirical research with applied, policy-directed, and critical work in what Rappaport called an “engaged” anthropology; and it is otherwise attuned to the political aspects and implications of ecological processes. Carefully laying out a critique of previous ecologies by way of announcing newer approaches, the new idea insists on the need to recognize the importance of culture mediations in ecological processes rather than treating culture as epiphenomenl and as a mere adaptive tool. It closes with a discussion of the methodologies appropriate to the new ecological anthropology.

 

The differences between the old and the new ecological anthropology involve policy and value orientation, application, analytic unit, scale, and method. The studies in the old ecological anthropology pointed out that natives did a reasonable job of managing their resources and preserving their ecosystems (albeit through some rather unsavory means, including mortal combat and female infanticide); but those studies, relying on the norm of cultural relativism, generally aimed at being value-neutral. By contrast the new ecological, or environmental, anthropology blends theory and analysis with political awareness and policy concerns. Accordingly, new sub fields have emerged, such as applied ecological anthropology and political ecology (Greenberg and Park, 1994).

 

4. Leading Figures of Ecological Anthropologist and its role on Environmentalism

 

4.1 Malthus, Thomas R. (1766-1834)-

Thomas R. Malthus is the author of Essay on Population (1798), which greatly influenced Charles Darwin. Malthus argued that populations grow exponentially, while resources only grow geometrically. Eventually, populations deplete their resources to such a degree that competition for survival becomes inevitable. This assumes that a struggle for existence will ensue, and only a certain number of individuals will survive. Malthus’s ideas helped to form the ecological basis for Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

 

4.2 Steward, Julian (1902-1972)-

Steward developed the cultural ecology paradigm and introduced the idea of the culture core. He studied the Shoshone of the Great Basin in the 1930s and noted that they were hunter-gatherers heavily dependent on the pinon nut tree. Steward demonstrated that lower population densities exist in areas where the tree is sparsely distributed, thus illustrating the direct relationship between resource base and population density. He was also interested in the expression of this relationship in regards to water availability and management. His ideas on cultural ecology were also influenced by studies of South American indigenous groups. He edited a handbook on South American Indians, which was published after World War II. Steward’s theories are presently regarded as examples of specific and multilinear evolution, where cross-cultural regularities exist due to the presence of similar environments. Steward specified three steps in the investigation of the cultural ecology of a society: (1) describing the natural resources and the technology used to extract and process them; (2) outlining the social organization of work for these subsistence and economic activities; (3) tracing the influence of these two phenomena on other aspects of culture (Barfield 1997:448). Julian Steward often fluctuated between determinism and possiblism (Balée 1996). He was interested in the comparative method in order to discover the laws of cultural phenomena (Barfield 1997:448).

 

4.3 White, Leslie (1900-1975)-

 

White’s principle preoccupation was with the process of general evolution, and he was best known for his strict materialist approach (Barfield 1997:491). He believed that the evolution of culture increases as does energy use per capita. Since the beginning of the hominid line, human beings have gradually increased their harnessing of energy from the environment. This results in cultural evolution. White described a process of universal evolution, in which all cultures evolve along a certain course (this course can be understood in measure of energy expenditure per capita). In comparison, Steward only claimed to see regularities cross-culturally. White described anthropology as “culturology” (Barfield 1997:491). He proposed to explain cultural evolution, C=E × T (where C=culture, E=energy, and T=technology). White also subscribed to a technological determinism, with technology ultimately determining the way people think (Balée 1996).

 

4.4 Harris, Marvin (1927-2001)-

 

Marvin Harris completed fieldwork in Africa and Brazil, but he was best known for his development of cultural materialism. This school of thought centers on the notion that technological and economic features of a society have the primary role in shaping its particular characteristics. He assigned research priority to concepts of infrastructure over structure and superstructure (Barfield 1997:137). The infrastructure is composed of the mode of production, demography, and mating patterns. Structure refers to domestic and political economy, and superstructure consists of recreational and aesthetic products and services. Harris’s purpose was to demonstrate the adaptive, materialist rationality of all cultural features by relating them to their particular environment (Milton 1997). Marvin Harris received his Ph.D. from Columbia University in1953, and he taught at Columbia University. During his later years, he conducted research and taught at the University of Florida.

 

4.5. Rappaport, Roy A. (1926-1997)-

 

Roy A. Rappaport was responsible for bringing ecology and structural functionalism together. Rappaport defined and was included in a paradigm called neofunctionalism (see Principal Concepts). He saw culture as a function of the ecosystem. The carrying capacity (see Principal Concepts) and energy expenditure are central themes in Rappaport’s studies, conducted in New Guinea. He completed the first systematic study of ritual, religion, and ecology, and this study is characterized as synchronic and functionalist. The scientific revolution, functionalism in anthropology, and new ecology are the three main influences upon Rappaport. Furthermore, like Steward and Harris, he was more interested in the infrastructural aspects of society, similar to Steward. Rappaport was the first scientist to successfully reconcile ecological sciences and cybernetics with functionalism in anthropology (Balée, 1996). Roy A. Rappaport was Professor of Anthropology at the University of Michigan and President of the American Anthropological Association (1987-89) (Moran, 1990).

 

4.6 Vayda, Andrew P

 

Vayda, Andrew P is Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Ecology at Rutgers University and a Senior Research Associate for the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) in Bogor, Indonesia. He has taught at Columbia University, the University of Indonesia, and additional Indonesian universities. He specializes in methodology and explanation at the interface between social and ecological science. Additionally, he has directed and participated in numerous research projects focused on people’s interactions with forests in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. He established the journal, Human Ecology and was an editor for some time afterwards. He serves at present on the editorial boards of Anthropological Theory, Borneo Research Council publications, and HumanEcology and is a founding board member of the Association for Fire Ecology of the Tropics.

 

4.7 Netting, Robert McC. (1934-1995)-

 

Robert McC. Netting wrote about agricultural practices, household organization, land tenure, warfare, historical demography, and cultural ecology (Netting 1977). He received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago and was a Professor of Anthropology at the University of Arizona. He published HillFarmers of Nigeria: Cultural Ecology of the Kofyar of the Jos Plateau (1973), Cultural Ecology (1986), and Balancing on an Alp: Ecological Change and Continuity in a Swiss Mountain Community (1981) (Moran 1984).

 

4.8 Conklin, Harold (1926- )-

 

Harold Conklin is most noted within ecological anthropology for showing that slash-and-burn cultivation under conditions of abundant land and sparse population is not environmentally destructive (Netting 1996). Furthermore, he gives complete descriptions of the wide and detailed knowledge of plant and animal species, climate, topography, and soils that makes up the ethnoscientific repertoire of indigenous food producers (Netting 1996). He sets the standards for ecological description with detailed maps of topography, land use, and village boundaries (Netting 1996). Conklin’s work focuses on integrating the ethnoecology and cultural ecology of the agroecosystems of the Hanunoo and Ifugao in the Philippines (Barfield 1997:138).

 

Moran, Emilio F

 

Emilio F. Moran is a specialist in ecological anthropology, resource management, and agricultural development (Moran 1984). Moran studied the Brazilian Amazon extensively. His micro-level ecosystem analysis of soils in the Amazon revealed substantial areas of nutrient rich soils, which are completely overlooked in macro-level analyses (Balée 1996). Emilio F. Moran is a professor at Indiana University and has published Human Adaptability (1982), Developing the Amazon (1981), and TheDilemma of Amazonian Development (1983) (Moran 1984).

 

4.9 Ellen, Roy F. (1947- )-

 

Roy F. Ellen studies the ecology of subsistence behaviors, ethnobiology, classification, and the social organization of trade (Moran 1990). He is a Professor of Anthropology and Human Ecology at the University of Kent (Moran 1990:x). His work with the Nuaulu in West Java has led him to develop awareness concepts concerning indigenous peoples and their understandings of the environment (Ellen 1993). Ellen has published Nuaulu Settlement and Ecology (1981); Environment, Subsistence andSystem: The Ecology of Small-Scale Social Formations (1982); Social and Ecological Systems; and Malinowski between Worlds (1989).

 

4.10      Balée, William (1954- )-

 

William Balée works within the historical ecology paradigm (Barfield 1997:138). Balée completed valuable ecological research among the Kaapor in the Amazon of Brazil. Balée seeks to integrate aspects of ethnoecology, cultural ecology, biological ecology, political ecology, and regional ecology in a processual framework (Barfield 1997:138). Furthermore, Balée demonstrates an unconscious form of management among the Kaapor with respect to one of their main resources- the yellow-footed tortoise. This indigenous group moves before the turtle becomes extinct in their immediate vicinity, and they also learn to exploit more of the area around the village in search of the tortoise (Balée 1996). He published Footprints of the Forest: Kaapor Ethnobotany—The Historical Ecology of Plant Utilization by an Amazonian People (1993) and is the editor of Advances in Historical Ecology. William Balée received his Ph.D. from Columbia University, and he is a Professor of Anthropology at Tulane University.

 

5.  Principal Concepts of Debate in Ecological Anthropology:

 

Carrying Capacity– According to Moran (1979:326), carrying capacity is “[t]he number of individuals that a habitat can support” (Moran 1979:326). This idea is related to population pressure, referring to the demands of a population on the resources of its ecosystem (Moran 1979:334). If the technology of a group shifts, then the carrying capacity changes as well. An example of the application of carrying capacity within ecological anthropology is demonstrated in Rappaport’s study of the Tsembaga Maring.

 

Cultural Ecology– Cultural ecology is the study of the adaptation of human societies or populations to their environments. Emphasis is on the arrangements of technique, economy, and social organization through which culture mediates the experience of the natural world (Winthrop 1991).

 

Culture Core– Julian Steward (1955) defined the cultural core as the features of a society that are the most closely related to subsistence activities and economic arrangements. Furthermore, the core includes political, religious, and social patterns that are connected to (or in relationship with) such arrangements (Steward 1955).

 

Diachronic Study- A diachronic study is one that includes an historical or evolutionary time dimension (Moran 1979). Steward used a diachronic approach in his studies (Moran 1979).

 

Ecology– Ecology is the study of the interaction between living and nonliving components of the environment (Moran 1979). This pertains to the relationship between an organism and all aspects of its environment.

 

Ecosystem– An ecosystem is the structural and functional interrelationships among living organisms and the environment of which they are a part (Moran 1990). Ecosystems are complex and can be viewed on different scales or levels. Moran’s study of soils in the Amazon is an example of micro-level ecosystem analysis.

 

Ecosystem Approach/Model– This is an approach used by some ecological anthropologists that focuses on physical (abiotic) components. Moran (1990) claims that this view uses the physical environment as the basis around which evolving species and adaptive responses are examined. The ecosystem approach had played a central role within ecological anthropology.

 

Environmental Determinism– A deterministic approach assigns one factor as the dominant influence in explanations. Environmental determinism is based on the assumption that cultural and natural areas are coterminous, because culture represents an adaptation to the particular environment (Steward 1955). Therefore, environmental factors determine human social and cultural behaviors (Milton 1997).

 

Ethnoecology– Ethnoecology is the paradigm that investigates native thought about environmental phenomena (Barfield 1997). Studies in ethnoecology often focus on indigenous classification hierarchies referring to particular aspects of the environment (for example, soil types, plants, and animals).

 

Ethnobotany– Ethnobotany is an ethnoscientific study of the relationship between human beings and plant life. During the 1960’s ethnobotanical units were used in ecological comparisons (Kottak 1999).

 

Historical Ecology– Historical ecology examines how culture and environment mutually influence each other over time (Barfield 1997). These studies have diachronic dimensions. Historical ecology is holistic and affirms that life is not independent from culture. This is an ecological perspective adhering to the idea that the relationship between a human population and its physical environment can be examined holistically, rather than deterministically. Landscapes can be understood historically, as well as ecologically. Historical ecology attempts to study land as an artifact of human activity (Balée 1996).

 

Latent Function– A latent function of a behavior is not explicitly stated, recognized, or intended by the people involved. Thus, they are identified by observers. Latent functions are associated with etic and operational models. For example, in Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People (2000), the latent function of the sacrifice is the presence of too many pigs, while its manifest function is the sacrifice of pigs to ancestors (Balée 1996).

 

Limiting Factor– In the 1960s cultural ecology focused on showing how resources could be limiting factors. A limiting factor is a variable in a region that, despite the limits or settings of any other variable, will limit the carrying capacity of that region to a certain number.

 

Manifest Function– A manifest function is explicitly stated and understood by the participants in the relevant action. The manifest function of a rain dance is to produce rain, and this outcome is intended and desired by people participating in the ritual. This could also be defined as emic with cognized models.

 

Neofunctionalism– This term represents a productive but short-lived 1960s revision of structural-functionalism. Neofunctionalism attends explicitly to the modeling of systems-level interactions, especially negative feedback, and assigns primary importance to techno-environmental forces, especially environment, ecology, and population (Bettinger 1996). Within neofunctionalism, culture is reduced to an adaptation, and functional behaviors are homeostatic and deviation counteracting, serving to maintain the system at large (Bettinger 1996:851). Neofunctional well being is measured in tangible currencies, such as population density, that relate to fitness (as in evolutionary biology) (Bettinger 1996).

 

Optimal forging theory– This theoretical perspective examines forging methods from the cost/benefit angle (Dove and Carpenter 2008). Analysis of this sort allows for researchers to determine the choices and logic behind changes in forging methods.

 

Swidden agriculture/shifting cultivation– Also known as slash-and-burn agriculture, this type of farming involves burning new forest for planting. Burning the forest, which is difficult in tropic and sub-tropic regions, mixes the top layer of soil allowing for nutrients to reach the cultigens (Dove and Carpenter 2008). According to Dove and Carpenter (2008), even though there is minimal ecological destruction and people are able to generate a high rate of food production, there are still many misconceptions about the practice (Dove and Carpenter 2008).

 

Synchronic Study– Rappaport conducted synchronic studies. These are short-term investigations that occur at one point in time and do not consider historical processes.

 

6. Summary

  • There are good reasons for anthropologists to be concerned with environmental policy.
  • The recent trend toward anthropological engagement with environmentalism was not at all inevitable
  • there is a rather sharp discontinuity between the ecological anthropology of the 1960s and early 1970s
  • relative to those in other disciplines, anthropologists have come rather late to the study of environmental movements.
  • One could point to a number of other theoretical trends that have been of significance in contributing to our present interest in environmentalism.
  • Efforts to understand the phenomenon of globalization and the forms of articulation between ‘‘the local’’ and globalizing processes have also been of significance.
  • The differences between the old and the new ecological anthropology involve policy and value orientation, application, analytic unit, scale, and method.
  • Thomas R. Malthus is the author of Essay on Population (1798), which greatly influenced Charles Darwin.
  • Steward developed the cultural ecology paradigm and introduced the idea of the culture core.
  • White’s principle preoccupation was with the process of general evolution, and he was best known for his strict materialist approach
  • Marvin Harris completed fieldwork in Africa and Brazil, but he was best known for his development of cultural materialism.
  • Roy A. Rappaport was responsible for bringing ecology and structural functionalism together. Vayda, Andrew P specializes in methodology and explanation at the interface between social and ecological science.
  • Robert McC. Netting wrote about agricultural practices, household organization, land tenure, warfare, historical demography, and cultural ecology
  • Harold Conklin is most noted within ecological anthropology for showing that slash-and-burn cultivation under conditions of abundant land and sparse population is not environmentally destructive.
  • Emilio F. Moran is a specialist in ecological anthropology, resource management, and agricultural development.
  • Roy F. Ellen studies the ecology of subsistence behaviors, ethnobiology, classification, and the social organization of trade.
  • William Balée works within the historical ecology paradigm
you can view video on Role of Ecological Anthropologists in the Debate of Environmentalism

 

Glossary

 

Carrying Capacity– According to Moran (1979:326), carrying capacity is “[t]he number of individuals that a habitat can support” (Moran 1979:326). This idea is related to population pressure, referring to the demands of a population on the resources of its ecosystem (Moran 1979:334). If the technology of a group shifts, then the carrying capacity changes as well. An example of the application of carrying capacity within ecological anthropology is demonstrated in Rappaport’s study of the Tsembaga Maring.

 

Cultural Ecology– Cultural ecology is the study of the adaptation of human societies or populations to their environments. Emphasis is on the arrangements of technique, economy, and social organization through which culture mediates the experience of the natural world (Winthrop 1991).

 

Culture Core– Julian Steward (1955) defined the cultural core as the features of a society that are the most closely related to subsistence activities and economic arrangements. Furthermore, the core includes political, religious, and social patterns that are connected to (or in relationship with) such arrangements (Steward 1955).

 

Diachronic Study- A diachronic study is one that includes an historical or evolutionary time dimension (Moran 1979). Steward used a diachronic approach in his studies (Moran 1979).

 

Ecology– Ecology is the study of the interaction between living and nonliving components of the environment (Moran 1979). This pertains to the relationship between an organism and all aspects of its environment.

 

Ecosystem– An ecosystem is the structural and functional interrelationships among living organisms and the environment of which they are a part (Moran 1990). Ecosystems are complex and can be viewed on different scales or levels. Moran’s study of soils in the Amazon is an example of micro-level ecosystem analysis.

 

Ecosystem Approach/Model– This is an approach used by some ecological anthropologists that focuses on physical (abiotic) components. Moran (1990) claims that this view uses the physical environment as the basis around which evolving species and adaptive responses are examined. The ecosystem approach had played a central role within ecological anthropology.

 

Environmental Determinism– A deterministic approach assigns one factor as the dominant influence in explanations. Environmental determinism is based on the assumption that cultural and natural areas are coterminous, because culture represents an adaptation to the particular environment (Steward 1955). Therefore, environmental factors determine human social and cultural behaviors (Milton 1997).

 

Ethnoecology– Ethnoecology is the paradigm that investigates native thought about environmental phenomena (Barfield 1997). Studies in ethnoecology often focus on indigenous classification hierarchies referring to particular aspects of the environment (for example, soil types, plants, and animals).

 

Ethnobotany– Ethnobotany is an ethnoscientific study of the relationship between human beings and plant life. During the 1960’s ethnobotanical units were used in ecological comparisons (Kottak 1999).

 

Historical Ecology– Historical ecology examines how culture and environment mutually influence each other over time (Barfield 1997). These studies have diachronic dimensions. Historical ecology is holistic and affirms that life is not independent from culture. This is an ecological perspective adhering to the idea that the relationship between a human population and its physical environment can be examined holistically, rather than deterministically. Landscapes can be understood historically, as well as ecologically. Historical ecology attempts to study land as an artifact of human activity (Balée 1996).

 

Latent Function– A latent function of a behavior is not explicitly stated, recognized, or intended by the people involved. Thus, they are identified by observers. Latent functions are associated with etic and operational models. For example, in Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People (2000), the latent function of the sacrifice is the presence of too many pigs, while its manifest function is the sacrifice of pigs to ancestors (Balée 1996).

 

Limiting Factor– In the 1960s cultural ecology focused on showing how resources could be limiting factors. A limiting factor is a variable in a region that, despite the limits or settings of any other variable, will limit the carrying capacity of that region to a certain number.

 

Manifest Function– A manifest function is explicitly stated and understood by the participants in the relevant action. The manifest function of a rain dance is to produce rain, and this outcome is intended and desired by people participating in the ritual. This could also be defined as emic with cognized models.

 

Neofunctionalism– This term represents a productive but short-lived 1960s revision of structural-functionalism. Neofunctionalism attends explicitly to the modeling of systems-level interactions, especially negative feedback, and assigns primary importance to techno-environmental forces, especially environment, ecology, and population (Bettinger 1996). Within neofunctionalism, culture is reduced to an adaptation, and functional behaviors are homeostatic and deviation counteracting, serving to maintain the system at large (Bettinger 1996:851). Neofunctional well being is measured in tangible currencies, such as population density, that relate to fitness (as in evolutionary biology) (Bettinger 1996).

 

Optimal forging theory– This theoretical perspective examines forging methods from the cost/benefit angle (Dove and Carpenter 2008). Analysis of this sort allows for researchers to determine the choices and logic behind changes in forging methods.

 

Swidden agriculture/shifting cultivation– Also known as slash-and-burn agriculture, this type of farming involves burning new forest for planting. Burning the forest, which is difficult in tropic and sub-tropic regions, mixes the top layer of soil allowing for nutrients to reach the cultigens (Dove and Carpenter 2008). According to Dove and Carpenter (2008), even though there is minimal ecological destruction and people are able to generate a high rate of food production, there are still many misconceptions about the practice (Dove and Carpenter 2008).

 

Synchronic Study– Rappaport conducted synchronic studies. These are short-term investigations that occur at one point in time and do not consider historical processes.

   References and Suggested Reading

  • Beck, U. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications.
  • Beck. U. , A. Giddens, and S. Lash. 1994. Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition, and aesthetics in the modern social order. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Beckett, J. , and D. Mato. 1996. Indigenous peoples/global terrains. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 3(1– 2).
  • Barfield, Thomas. 1997. The Dictionary of Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Balée, William. 1996. Personal communication (lectures for “Ecological Anthropology”).
  • Barfield, Thomas. 1997. The Dictionary of Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Bates, Marston. 1955. The Prevalence of People. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
  • Bennett, John W. 2005. The Ecological Transition: Cultural Anthropology and Human Adaptation. Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
  • Bettinger, Robert. 1996. “Neofunctionalism.” In Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology. Four volumes. David Levinson and Melvin Ember, eds. Pp. 851-853. New York: Henry Holt.
  • Bennett, John W. 2005. The Ecological Transition: Cultural Anthropology and Human Adaptation. Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
  • Carlassare, E. 1994. Destabilizing the criticism of essentialism in Ecofeminist discourse. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 5(3):50–66.
  • Carney, J. 1993. Converting the wetlands, engendering the environment: The intersection of gender with agrarian change in the Gambia. Economic Geography 69:329–48.
  • Cole, L. 1993. Element of risk: The politics of radon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Comaroff, J. 1985. Body of power, spirit of resistance: The culture and history of a South African people. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Cronon, W. Editor. 1995. Uncommon ground: Toward rein-venting nature. New York: W. W. Norton.
  • Diamond, I. , and G. Ornstein. Editors. 1990. Reweaving the world: The emergence of ecofeminism. San Francisco: Sierra Club
  • Douglas, M. , and A. Wildavsky. 1982e. Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Dunlap, R. , and w. Catton. 1979. Environmental sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 5:243–73.
  • During, S. Editor. 1993. The cultural studies reader. London: Routledge.
  • During, A. 1992. Guardians of the land: Indigenous peoples and the health of the earth. (Worldwatch Paper 112.) Washington, D.C.: World watch Institute.
  • Descola, Philippe and Gísli Pálsson eds. 1996. Nature and Society: Anthropological Perspective. New York: Routledge.
  • Dove, Michael R. and Carol Carpenter. 2008. Environmental Anthropology: A Historical Reader. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  • Ellen, Roy. 1982. Environment, Subsistence and System: The Ecology of Small-Scale Social Formations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ellen, Roy eds. 2007. Modern Crises and Traditional Strategies: Local Ecological Knowledge in Island Southeast Asia. New York: Berghahn Books.
  • Escobar, A. 1995. Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Escobar, A. , and S. E. Alvarez. Editors. 1992. The making of social movements in Latin America: Identity, strategy, and democracy. Boulder: Westview Press.
  • Featherstone, M. Editor. 1990. Global culture: Nationalism, globalization, and modernity. London: Sage.
  • Ferguson, J. 1994. The Anti-politics machine: ‘‘Development,’’ depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Ferry, L. 1995. The new ecological order. Translated by Carol Volk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Fisher, W. 1997. Doing good? The politics and antipolitics of NGO practices. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:439–64.
  • Foucault, M. 1972. The archeology of knowledge. Translated by A. Sheridan Smith. New York: Harper Colophon.
  • Franklin, S. 1995. Science as culture, cultures of science. Annual Review of Anthropology 24:163–84.
  • Gaventa, J. 1980. Power and powerlessness: Quiescence and rebellion in an Appalachian valley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
  • Gough Kathleen. 1968. Anthropology and imperialism. Monthly Review 19(11):12–27.
  • Greenberg, James B., and Thomas K. Park 1994 Political Ecology. Political Ecology 1:1-12
  • Geertz, Clifford. 1963. Agricultural Involution: The Process of Ecological Change in Indonesia. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  • Grossberg, L. , C. Nelson, and P. A. Treichler. Editors. 1992. Cultural studies. New York: Routledge.
  • Guha, Ramachandra. 1989. Radical American environmentalism and wilderness preservation: A Third World critique. Environmental Ethics 11(1):71–83.
  • Guha, Ranajit, and G. Spivak. Editors. 1988. Selected subaltern studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Haraway, D. 1989. Primate visions: Gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science. London: Routledge.
  • Haenn, Nora and Richard Wilk eds. 2006. The Environment in Anthropology: A Reader in Ecology, Culture, and Sustainable Living. New York: New York University Press
  • Harris, Marvin. 1966. The Cultural Ecology of India’s Sacred Cattle. In Current Anthropology 7:51-66.
  • Harris, Marvin. 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  • Headland, Thomas N. 1997. Revisionism in Ecological Anthropology. In Current Anthropology 38:605-630.
  • Hooks, B. 1984. Feminist theory from margin to center. Boston: South End Press.
  • Jackson, Jean. 1989. Is there a way to talk about culture without making enemies? Dialectical Anthropology 14:127– 43.
  • Kottak, Conrad P. 1999. The New Ecological Anthropology. In American Anthropologist 101:23-35.
  • Latour, B. , and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.
  • Lattas, A. 1993. Essentialism, memory, and resistance: Aboriginality and the politics of authenticity. Oceania 63:240–67.
  • Milton, K. Editor. 1993. Environmentalism: The view from anthropology. London: Routledge.
  • Moran, Emilio F. 1999 (1982). Human adaptability: An introduction to ecological anthropology. Boulder: Westview Press.
  • Mc Elroy, Ann and Patricia K. Townsend. 2008. Medical Anthropology in Ecological Perspective. 5th ed. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
  • Milton, Kay. 1997. Ecologies: Anthropology, Culture and the Environment. In International Social Sciences Journal 49:477-495.
  • Moran, Emilio F. 1979. Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
  • Moran, Emilio F. 2000. Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology. 2nd ed. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
  • Moran, Emilio F. 2007. Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology. 3rd ed. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
  • Moran, Emilio F. 2006. People and Nature: An Introduction to Human Ecological Relations. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Moran, Emilio F. 1983. The Dilemma of Amazonian Development. 2nd eds. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
  • Moran, Emilio F. 1984. The Ecosystem Concept in Anthropology. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
  • Moran, Emilio F. 1990. The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  • Netting, Robert McC. 1977. Cultural Ecology. Reading, Massachusetts: Cummings Publishing Company.
  • Netting, Robert McC. 1986. Cultural Ecology. 2nd ed. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.
  • Netting, Robert McC. 1996. Cultural Ecology. In Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology. Four Volumes. David Levinson and Melvin Ember, eds. Pp. 267-271. New York: Henry Holt.
  • Offe, C. 1985. New social movements: Challenging the boundaries of institutional politics. Social Research 52:812–68.
  • Orlove, Benjamin S. 1980. Ecological Anthropology. In Annual Review of Anthropology 9:235-273.
  • Ong, A. 1987. Spirits of resistance and capitalist discipline: Factory women in Malaysia. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Parajuli, P. 1991. Power and knowledge in development dis-course. International Social Science Journal 127:173–90.
  • Pigg, S. 1992. Constructing social categories through place: Social representations and development in Nepal. Comparative Studies in Society and History 34:491–513.
  • Rabinow, P. 1992. ‘‘Artificiality and enlightenment: From sociobiology to biosociality,’’ in Incorporations. Edited by J. Crary and S. Kwinter, pp. 234–52. New York: Zone Books.
  • Ramos, Alcida. 1994. The hyperreal Indian. Critique of An-thropology 14(2):153–71.
  • Rappaport, R. 1993. Pigs for the ancestors: Ritual in the ecology of a New Guinea people. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Rappaport, Roy A. 1968. Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale Universty Press.
  • Sachs, W. Editor. 1992. The development dictionary: A guide to knowledge as power. London: Zed Books.
  • Scott, J. 1985. Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peas-ant resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Slack, J. , and J. Berland. Editors. 1994. Cultural studies and the environment. Cultural Studies 8(1).
  • Smith, M. 1994. Can you imagine? Transnational migration and the globalization of grassroots politics. Social Text 39:15– 33.
  • Strathern, M. 1992. Reproducing the future: Essays on anthropology, kinship, and the new reproductive technologies. New York: Routledge.
  • Sturgeon, N. 1997. Ecofeminist natures: Race, gender, feminist theory, and political action. New York and London: Routledge.
  • Salzman, Phillip Carl and Donald W. Attwood. 1996. “Ecological Anthropology.” In Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology. Alan Barnard and Jonathan Spencer, eds. Pp. 169-172. London: Routledge.
  • Seymour-Smith, Charlotte. 1986. Dictionary of Anthropology. Boston: G. K. Hall and Company.
  • Steward, Julian. 1955. Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
  • Steward, Julian. 1977. Evolution and Ecology: Essays on Social Transformations. Jane C. Steward and Robert F. Murphy, eds. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
  • Townsend, Patricia. 2008. Environmental Anthropology: From Pigs to Politics. 2nd ed. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.
  • Turner, T. 1991. ‘‘Representing, resisting, rethinking: Historical transformations of Kayapo´ culture and anthropological consciousness,’’ in Colonial situations: Essays on the contextual- ization of ethnographic knowledge. Edited by G. Stocking, pp. 285–313. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Vayda, Andrew P., ed. 1969 Environment and Cultural Behavior. Garden City, New York: The Natural History Press.
  • Vayda, Andrew P. 2009. Explaining Human Actions and Environmental Changes. Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press.
  • Vayda Andrew P. and Bonnie J. McCay. 1975. New Directions in Ecology and Ecological Anthropology. In Annual Review of Anthropology 4:293-306.
  • Walters, Bradley B., Bonnie J. McCay, Paige West, and Susan Lees. 2008. Against the Grain: The Vayda Tradition in Human Ecology and Ecological Anthropology. Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press.
  • White, Leslie A. 1959. Energy and Tools. In Readings for a History of Anthropological Theory 3rd. Paul A. Erickson and Liam D. Murphy, eds. Pp. 293-310. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, Inc.
  • Winthrop, Robert H. 1991. Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology. New York: Greenwood Press

    Relevant Web Links: