Kottak new eco.pdf

7/27/2019 Kottak new eco.pdf

1/13

. K OT T AK

The New Ecological AnthropologyOlder ecologies have been remiss in the narrowness of their spatial and temporal horizons, their functionalist assum ptions,and their apolitical character. Suspending functionalist a ssumptions and an emphasis upon (hom eo)stasis, the new eco-logical anthropolog y is located at the intersection of global, national, regional, and local systems, studying the outcom e ofthe interaction of multiple levels and multiple factors. It blends theoretical and empirical research with applied, policy-di-rected, and critical work in what Rappaport called an engaged anthropo logy; and it is otherwise attuned to the politicalaspects and implications of ecological processes. Carefully laying out a critique of previous ecologies by way of announc-ing newer approaches, the article insists on the need to recognize the importance of culture mediations in ecological proc-esses rather than treating culture as epiphenomenal and as a mere adaptive tool. It closes with a discussion of themethodologies appropriate to the new ecological anthropology. / thenew ecology, political ecology, applied or engagedanthropology, linkagesmethodology]

cological anthropology was named as such duringthe 1960s, but it has many ancestors, includingDaryll Forde, Alfred Kroeber, and, especially, Jul-

but the analytic unit shifted from culture to theas seen as using culture as a

New Guinea people and Ha rris's [1966,1974] analysistheadaptive, conservatory role of the Hindu doctrine of with special reference to the cultural ecology ofThe ecological anthropology of the 1960s was known

derstand and devise culturally informed solutions to suchproblems/issues as environmental degradation, environ-mental racism, and the role ofthemedia, NGOs, and environmental hazards in stimulating ecological aw areness andaction. While recognizing that local and regional systemsare permeable, the new ecological anthropology must becareful not to remove humans and their specific social andcultural forms from the analytic framework.

The following reviews the salient features of the oldecological anthropology, setting the stage for an explora-tion of important aspects of an emerging new ecologicalanthropology.The Old Ecological Anthropology and

Its Units of AnalysisThe ecological anthropology of the 1960s was knownfor its functionalism, systems theory, and focus on nega-tive feedback. Anthropologists examined the role of cul-tural practices and beliefs in enabling human populationsto optimize their adaptations to their environments and inmaintaining undegraded local and regional ecosystemsVarious scholars (for example, Friedman 1974) attackedboth ecological anthropology and cultural materialism fora series of presumed faults, including circular reasoningpreoccupation with stability rather than change and simplesystems rather than complex ones, and Panglossian func-tionalism (the assumption that adaptation is optimalcre-

ating the best of all possible worlds). Rappaport's distinc-tion between cognized and operational models was relatedto ethnoscience, which grew out of linguistics but became


2/13

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST V O L 101 No MARCH 1999

it received som e of the sam e criticisms just m entionedecological anthropology .The basic units of the ecological anthropology of the

ry). Assum ptions of the old ecological

Rappaport defines an ecological population as an ag-having in comm on a set of distinctive

orary flows of peop le, infor-across cultural and social bounda- distinctive are the cultural adaptive means em-ed diversity within popu lations, how commonis the

Rappaport also characterizes ecological populations as

human groups are excluded. Similarly, he definesthe total of living organisms and non-livingion of the biosphere (1971a:238).

many groups sub-

ee of intrusion by others? To be sure, Rappaport was

analysis. Thus, local ecological populations . . .onal exch ange systems com posed of sev-a (197 1a:25 1). In fact, the articulation of local

ort's famed account of the ritual cycle in the context ofP igs for the An cestors:Ecology of a New Guinea People(1968) be-the classic case study of hum an ecology in a tribal so-

ciety, the role of culture (especially ritual) in local and regional resource management, negative feedback, and theapplication of system theory to an anthropological population.However enlightening Rappaport's analysis may havebeen for understanding Maring adaptation, the limitationsof such an approach for the study of more complex societies were apparent even in the 1960s. I had to confronthem as I planned my own ecological study of the Betsileoof Madagascar, a much more populous group with a muchmore complex (chiefdom/state) sociopolitical organization. InThePastinthePresent:H istory, Ecology, andCturalVariationin Highland Mad agascar (Kottak 1980), large-scale comparative and historical study based onfieldwork done in 1966 and 1967,1 attempted an ecologi-cal analysis of the Betsileosom e 800,000 people distrib-uted over a much larger territory than the TsembagaMaring. Com bining ethnography with survey techniques, Ievaluated ecological adaptation (of the Betsileo and otherMalagasy) by focusing on associations or bundles of inter-related material variables (correlations across time andspace) rather than by trying to define and demarcate pre-cise locaJ ecosystems. The categories of material condi-tions I (like Rapp aport) considered included aspects of thephysical and biotic environments and such regional factorsas trade and warfare, but they also extended to the role ofstratification and the state in determining differential ac-cess to strategic and socially valued resources. Clearly, theecological analysis of state-level societies could not be thesame as that ofbandsand tribes.

Madagascar also raised the complicated question of therelation between culture (ethnicity), ecology, and the state.Fredrik Barth (1958, 1969) had postulated that, especiallywhen there is niche specialization plus exchange, conver-gence and assimilation of contiguous ethnic groups are notinevitable; ethnic distinctions can be m aintained ov ertim e.I noted that abrupt environmental and ethnic shifts havebeen possible in Madagascar. For example, when peoplemoved to a certain area of Madagascar's forested easternescarpment, they became Tanala, which means people ofthe forest. (This, by the way, is no longer as clearly true.)Here, an ethnic label seems to have corresponded fairlyclosely to an ecological distinction.

But such correspondence was not generally true inMadagascar, where ethnic labels owed more to the politi-cal situation than to the natural environm ent. Within territorially large and populous ethnic grou ps (e.g., BetsileoMerina, Sak alava), there is considerable variation in envi-ronment, modes of production, and means of adaptationAlso, the existence of ecoclines regions of gradual rathethan abrupt shifts from one set of ecological variables toanothermak es it difficult to claim a neat corresponden cebetween ethnicity and ecology. Historically, in Madagascar as elsewhere, the state has often intervened creating


3/13

K O T T A K / T H E N H W E C O L O G I C A L A N T H R O P O L O G Y 25

It is much more evident today than it was during the

For example, Rapp aport's cognized mo del (Rap-Wolf,this issue) requires modifica-n his formulation, the cognized model refers to native

ount for w hy he or she does things. Contemporary peo-

fusion may be as important as en-

ive an thropology) as to ecological anthro-The same is true of his operational mod el (Rappaport

ed w ithout destroying the system that

ration ago. The world has grown more complex

affect loca l people in their various imm ediate mi-The New Ecological Anthropology

The differences between the old and the new ecological

e job of managing their resources and preserving

the new ecological, or environm ental, anthropology blendstheory and analysis with political awareness and policyconcerns. Accordingly, new subfields have emerged, suchas applied ecological anthropology and political ecology(Greenberg and Park 1994).We cannot be neutral scientists studying cognized andoperational models of the environment and the role of

humans in regulating its use when local communities andecosystems are increasingly endangered by external agents.Many anthropologists have witnessed personally a threatto the people they studycommercial logging, environ-mental pollution, radioactivity, environmental racism andclassism, ecocide, and the imposition of culturally insensi-tive external management systems on local ecosystemsthat the native inhabitants have managed adequately forcenturies. To day 's w orld is full of neocolonial actions andattitudes; outsiders claim or seize control over local eco-systems, taking actions that long-term residents may dis-dain. Concerned with proposing and evaluating policy, thenew environmental anthropology attempts not only to un-derstand but also to devise culturally informed and appro-priate solutions to such problems and issues as environ-mental degradation, environmental racism, and the role ofthe media, NGOs, and various kinds of hazards in trigger-ing ecological awareness, action, and sustainability.Environmental anthropologists focus on new units ofanalysisnational and international, in addition to the lo-cal and regional, as these levels vary and link in time andspace. Entering into a dialogue with schools of natural re-sources and the environment, anthropology's comparativeperspective adds an international dimension to the under-standing of issues like environmental justice and ecosys-tems management, which natural resource specialists havebeen studying for decades, though mainly with a U.S. fo-cus.Conversely, anthropologists use methods and perspec-tives developed in other nations and cultures to shed lighton environmental issues in the United States and C anada asNorth America itself becomes an increasingly commonfield of study in anthropology. And new methodsfromsurveys to satellite imageryare used to place ecologicalissues in a context far larger, deeper, and broader in spaceand time than the bounded-system approach of the 1960s.Methodologies within the new ecological anthropologymust be appropriate to the complex linkages and levels thatstructure the modern world.The changes in ecological anthropology mirror moregeneral changes in anthropology: the shift from researchfocusing on a single comm unity or culture , perceived asmore or less isolated and unique, to recognizing pervasivelinkages and concomitant flows of people, technology, im-ages, and information, and to acknowledg ing the impact ofdifferential power and status in the postmodern world onlocal entities. In the new ecological anthropology, every-thing is on a larger scale. The focus is no longer mainly thelocal ecosystem. The outsid ers who impinge on local


4/13

A M E R I C A N A N T H R O P O L O G I S T V O L . 1 0 1 . N o . 1 M A R C H 1 9 99

as contact with external agents and agencies (for exam-

involves m ultiple levels. For example, among the An-

chief, or mpanjaka),provincial and na-ly funded by USA ID.

or the New Ecological AnthropologyOne firm conclusion of the old ecological anthropologyll its guises (for example, the ecological anthropol-of Rappaport and Vayda, the cultural materialismHarris, and the ethnoscience of Berlin, Conklin,

ional ways of categorizing resources, regulating their ethnoecologyisthat is, its cultural model oftheenvironment and itsion to people and society. Tod ay's world featuresade-cal and economic interconnectedness unparal-

Clashes: Developmentalism an dChallenging traditional ethnoecologies are two, origi-

hnoecologies and their pow-and resistance.

Environmentalism entails a political and social concernwith the depletion of natural resources (Bramwel1989:3-6; Douglas and W ildavsky 1982:10-16 ). This concern has arisen w ith, and in opposition to, the expan sion oa cultural model (developmentalism) shaped by the idealof industrialism, progress, and (over)consumption (Bar-bour 1973; Pepper 1984). Environmental awareness is ris-ing today as local groups adapt to new circumstances andto the models of developmentalism and environmen talismHazards created by developm ent have been necessary con-ditions for the emergence of new perceptions of the envi-ronment. Environmental safeguards and conservation ofscarce resources are important goalsfrom global, na-tional, long-run, and even local perspectives. Still, amelio-rative strategies must be implemented in the short run andin local communities. If traditional resources and productsare to be destroyed, removed , or placed off limits (whetherfor development or conservation), they need to be replacedwith culturally appropriate and satisfactory alternatives.A new, possibly mediating, ethnoecological modelsustainable development has emerged from recent en-counters between local ethnoecologies and imported eth-noecologies, responding to changing circumstances. Sus-tainable development aims at culturally appropriate,ecologically sensitive, self-regenerating change. It thusmediates between the three models just discussed: tradi-tional local ethnoecology , env ironmentalism, and develop-mentalism. Sustainability has become a mantra in thediscourse surrounding the planning of conservation anddevelopment projects, but clear cases of successful sustain-

able developm ent are few.Issues addressed by the new ecological anthropologyarise at the intersection of global, national, regional, and lo-cal systems, in a world characterized not only by clashingcultural models but also by failed states, regional wars, andincreasing lawlessness. Local people, their landscapes,their ideas, their values, and their traditional managementsystems are being attacked from all sides. Outsiders at-tempt to remake native landscapes and cultures in theirown image. The aim of many agricultural developmentprojects, for example, seems to be to make the world asmuch like Iowa as possible, complete with mechanizedfarming and nuclear family ownershipdespite the factthat these models may be inappropriate in settings outsidethe midwestern United States. Development projects oftenfail when they try to replace native forms with culturallyalien property concepts and productive units (Kottak1990). Also problematic is the modern intervention phi-losophy that seeks to impose global ecological moralitywithout due attention to cultural variation and autonomy.Countries and cultures may resist interventionist philoso-phies aimed at either development or globally oriented en-vironmentalism.A clash of cultures related to environmental change mayoccur w hen development threatens indigenous peoples and


5/13

K O T T A K / T H E N E W E C O L O G I C A L A N T H R O P O L O G Y 2

heir environments. Native groups like the Kayapo of Bra-zil may be threatened by regional, national, and interna-tional development plans (such as a dam or commerciallydriven deforestation) that would destroy their homelands.A second clash of cultures related to environmental changeoccurs when external regulation threatens indigenous peo-ples. Thus, native g roups, such as the Tanosy of southeast-ern Madagascar, may be harm ed by regional, national, andinternational environmental plans that seek to save theirhomelands. Sometimes outsiders expect local people togive up many of their customary economic and cultural ac-tivities without clear substitutes, alternatives, or incentives.A traditional approach to conservation has been to restrictaccess to protected areas, hire park gu ards, and punish vio-lators.

Problems usually arise when external regulation re-places the native system. Like developm ent projects, con-servation schemes may ask people to change the w ay theyhave been doing things for generations to satisfy planners'goals rather than local goals. In locales as different asMadagascar, Brazil, and the Pacific Northwest of NorthAmerica, people are being asked, told, or forced to changeor abandon basic economic activities because to do so isgood for nature or the globe. Environmentalists fromnorthern nations increasingly preach ecological morality tothe rest of the worldraising issues of national and localautonomy. Good for the globe doe sn't play very well inBrazil, where the Amazon is a focus of environmentalistattention. Brazilians complain that Northerners talk aboutglobal needs and saving the Amazon only after they de-stroyed their own forests for First World economic growth.Akbar Ahmed (1992) finds the non-Western world to becynical about Western ecological morality, seeing it as yetanother imperialist message. The Chinese have cause tosnigger at the W estern suggestion that they forgo the con-venience of the fridge to save the ozone layer (Ahmed1992:120). Well-meaning conservation efforts can be asinsensitive as development schemes that promote radicalhanges without involving local people in planning andarrying out the policies that affect them. When people aresked to give up the basis of their livelihood, they usually

Consider the case ofaTanosy man living on the edge ofed on rice fields and grazing land inside the

ombiasa (traditional sorcerer-healer). With foura dozen children, and twenty head ofcattle,he is an

to abandon his fields. The om bi-

resistance has been supernatural. The death of the ranger'syoung son was attributed to the ombiasa's magical powerAfter that the ranger was less vigilant in his enforcemenefforts.Biodiversity Conservation

Biodiversity conservation has becom e an issue in politi-cal ecology, one of the subfields of the new ecological an-thropology. Such conservation schemes may expose verydifferent notions about the rights and value of plants andanimals versus those of humans. In Madagascar, many in-tellectuals and officials are bothered that foreigners seemmore concerned about lemurs and other endangered spe-cies than about Madagascar's people. As one colleaguethere remarked, The next time you come to Madagascar,there'll be no more Malagasy. All the people will havestarved to death, and a lemur will have to meet you at theairport. Most Malagasy perceive human poverty as amore pressing problem than animal and plant survival.On the other hand, accepting the idea that preservingglobal biodiversity is a worthwhile goal, one vexing rolefor applied ecological anthropology is to devise sociallysensitive and culturally appropriate strategies for achievingbiodiversity conservationin the face of unrelentingpopulation growth and commercial expansion. How doesone get local people to support biodiversity conservationmeasures that may, in the short run at least, diminish theiraccess to strategic and socially valued resources?I am one of several anthropologists who have done so-cial-soundness analysis for conservation and developmentprojects. Such projects aim, in theory at least, at preservingnatural resources and biodiversity while promoting humanwelfare through developm ent. My experience designingthe social-soundness component of the SAVEM projec(Sustainable and Viable Environmental Management), in-tended to preserve biodiversity in Madagascar, suggestedthat a gradual, sensitive, and site-specific strategy is mostlikely to succeed (Kottak 1990; Kottak and Costa 1993)Conservation policy can benefit from use of a flexible learning proce ss model rather than a rigid bluep rintstrategy (Korten 1980; see also Kottak 1990). The ap-proach I recommended for Madagascar involves listeningto the affected people throughout the w hole process in or-der to minimize damage to them. Local people (with aleast some secondary education) were trained as para-an-thropolog ists to monitor closely the perceptions and reac-tions oftheindigenous people during the changes.

Like development plans in general, the most effectiveconservation strategies pay attention to the needs andwishes of the people living in the target area. C onservationdepends on local cooperation and participation. In the Tanosycase mentioned above, the outsider guardians of the reserve needed to do m ore to satisfy affected people, throughboundary adjustments, negotiation, and compensation. Fo


6/13

8 A M E R I C A N A N T H R O P O L O G I S T V O L . 101. No. MARCH 1999

ent agencies nor N GO s will succeed if they try toles, laws, beliefs, and values ofthepeople to be af-

Reasons to conserve should be explained in terms thatvalue oftheforest for agriculture (as an anti-

did such global goals as preserv -Most Malagasy have no idea that lemurs

In the long run millions of Malagasy stand to benefit

rn Madagascar already recognized the link be-deforestation and a low water table. Their ecologicalwas rising slowly. Rural people w ere starting to

Awareness and EnvironmentalRiskThe applied ( engaged in Rap papo rt's [1994] terms)

and to harness parts of native ethnoecological m od-

With Brazilian colleagues Alberto Costa and Rosane

are are people of environm ental

to minor dangers with strong fears? How is

riskperceptionrelated toactionsthat can reduce threats tthe environment and to health? (For an American take onsuch questions, see Kempton et al. 1995.)A key assumption underlying our Brazilian research isas follows: although the presence of an actual hazard in-creases risk perception, such perception does not ariseinevitably through rational cost-benefit analysis ofrisk.Instead, risk perception emerges (or lags) in cultural, politi-cal, and economic contexts shaped by encounters amonglocal ethnoecologies, imported ethnoecologies (often spreadby the media), and changing circumstances (includingpopulation grow th, m igration, and industrial expansion).Environmental awareness was especially evident inBrazil immediately before and after the Earth Summit orUNCED (the United Nations Conference on the Environ-ment and Development), held in Rio de Janeiro in June1992. Ecological awareness has been abetted by the media,particularly televisionto which Brazil is well-exposed,with the world's most watched commercial television net-work, Glob o. Brazilian environm entalism began to grow inthe mid-1980s, reflecting the return of public debate alongwith democracy abertura, the Brazilian glasnost, aftetwo decades of military rule. Brazilian environmentalism,strongest in cities in the southcentral part of the country, isa growing political force, but with mainly urban support.There is much less ecological awareness outside themain cities. A simple illustration co mes from my own re-search in Arem bepe (Bahia state), an A tlantic fishing townI have been studying since 1962 (Kottak 1999). Since theearly 1970s, Arem bepe has suffered air and water pollutionfrom a nearby multinationally owned titanium dioxide fac-tory. In three decades, Arembepe's municipal seat,Camagari, has grown tenfold, from a sleepy rural town intoa major industrial (petrochemical) center. Chemical pollu-tion of the reg ion's streams, rivers, and coastal waters nowendangers wildlife and people.Like others in their municipality, Arembepeiros facereal and imm ediate hazards industrial pollution of the air,fresh water, and the ocean. Several times, reporters fromthe nearby metropolis of Salvador have covered the chemi-cal pollution of Arembepe's coastal water and freshwaterlagoons. Most villagers have seen those reports on TV.Still, local awareness of immediate environmental threatshasn't increased as rapidly as the hazards have. Thus,walking along the beach north of Arembepe one day in1985 ,1 passed dead sea gulls every few yards. There werehundreds of birds in all. I watched the birds glide feebly tothe beach, where they set down and soon died. I wasstunned and curious, but local people paid little attention tothis matter. When I asked for explanations, people saidsimply the birds are sick. Neither Arem bepeiros nor sci-entists I spoke with in Salvador (who speculated about anoil spill or mercury poisoning) could provide a definitiveexplanation for the dead birds. Like other contemporary


7/13

K O T T A K / T H E N E W E C O L O G I C A L A N T H R O P O L O G Y 2

n to local ones.In Brazil, nationally publicized environmental threats

Although Brazilian environmental awareness hastheecologically threat-

When they are asked about ecology, most Braz il-

Although the Brazilian media have increased their envi-

gation w ater oratax incentive) for taking ac-to do so. Risk perception per se does

s and Rights Movem entsThe worldwide proliferation of nongovernmental or-

have arisen around environmental and rights is- Over the past decade, the allocation of internationalfor deve lopm ent (including conservation as well as

In the development comm unity (for example, the

NGOs are generally viewed as more responsive to locawishes and more effective in encouraging community participation than are authoritarian and totalitarian governments. However, this strategy is being increasingly criticized, especially in cases (for example, Madagascar) inwhich powerful, expatriate-staffed international NGOs areallowed to encroach on the regulatory authority of existinggovernm ents. There is a real issue of neocolonialism whenit is assumed that NGOs with headquarters in Europe oNorth Am erica are better representatives ofthepeople thanare their own elected g overnm ents, although certainly theymay be.

The emergence and international spread of rightsmovements (human, cultural, animal) is also of interest toecological anthropology. The idea of human rights chal-lenges the nation-state by invoking a realm of justice andmorality beyond and superior to particular countries, cul-tures, and religions. Human rights are seen as inalienable(nation-states cannot abridge or terminate them) andmetacultural (larger than and superior to individual nation-states). Cultural rights, on the other hand, apply to unitswithinthe state. Cultural rights are vested not in individualbut in identifiable groups, such as religious and ethnic mi-norities and indigenous societies. Cultural rights include agro up 's ab ility to preserve its culture, to raise its children inthe ways of its forebears, to continue its language, and notto be deprived of its economic base (Greaves 1995:3)Greaves (1995) points out that because cultural rights aremainly uncodified, their realization must rely on the samemechanisms that create thempressure, publicity, andpolitics. Such rights have been pushed by a wave of politi-cal assertiveness throughout the world, in which the mediaand NGO s have played a prominent part.

The notion of indigenous intellectual property rights(IPR) has arisen in an attempt to conserve each society'scultural baseits core beliefs and principles, including itsethnoecology. IPR is claimed as a group righta culturalright, allowing indigenous groups to control who mayknow and use their collective knowledge and its applica-tions. Much traditional cultural knowledge has com mercialvalue. Examples include ethnomedicine (traditional medi-cal knowledge and techniques), cosmetics, cultivatedplants, foods, folklore, arts, crafts, songs, dances, cos-tumes, and rituals. According to the IPR c oncept, a particu-lar group may determine how indigenous knowledge andits products may be used and distributed and the level ofcompensation required.Environmental Racism

The issues of interest to the new ecological anthropol-ogy are myriad, but a final one may be mentioned: envi-ronmental racism. This is a form of institutional discrimi-nation in which programs, policies, and institutionaarrangements deny equal rights and opportunities to, or


8/13

A ME RIC AN A NT HR OP OL OG IS T V O L . 101. No. M AR CH 1999

rentially harm, m embe rs of particulargroups.Bunyanthe system atic use of institutionally-based power by

y comm unities (1991:4). Thus, toxic waste dumpsed in areas with nonw hite populations.Environmental racism is discriminatory but not always are deliberatelyly to protest (because they are poor, powerless, disor-or uned ucated ). (This is why a polluting tita-

e of Arem bepe rather than in an area having more politi-

er the consequences of living in a

thodology in the New Ecological A nthropologyThe new ecological anthropology can draw on a seriesch research methods. Satellite imagery (deployed

ation, such as yields in Balinese fields in re-

Also relevant to the new ecological anthropology isethodology, as elaborated by Kottak and Colson

link to describe various recent multilevel,

ages in relation to research methodology and content wasthe goal of a working group of anthropologists who firsmet in 1986.' All of us were concerned with the impact ofinternational and national forces, including developmentprojects, on our research locales. Most members of theLinkages Grou p (as we called o urselves) had w orked m orethan once in the same region. We knew the advantages ofobserving how people respond to different opportunitiesand perturbations at various stages of their lives.We recognized the value of research samples (bothcommunities and mobile individuals) that could be fol-lowed through time. What kinds oflinksdid they have withothers, including external agencies? This line of inquiryentailed a census approach, a network approach (to tracerelationships associated with geographical mobility andexternal interventions), plus survey and ethnographic tech-niques. The linkages approach to change also required at-tention to the roles of governmental and nongovernmentalorganizations, and of changes in marketing, transportation,and communication systems.One method of linkages research is to study a site orsites over time. Another is systematic intercommunitycomparison, requiring multiple sites that are chosen be-cause they vary with respect to key criteria. These sites canbe drawn from the same region, and the data collectedwould be part of the same study. They can also be fromdifferent regions (even different countries), if anthropolo-gists can provide minimum core data (Epstein 1978:220)to make com parison p ossible. Linkages research extends tothe levels at which policies are worked out, examining ar-chives and official records and interviewing planners, ad-ministrators, and others who im pinge on the study popula-tion^).The aim of linkages methodology is to link changesat the local level to those in regional, national, and worldsystems.Linkages research is planned as an ongoing process re-quiring teamwork. Time and personnel are needed to fol-low a dispersing population , to study different sites, to in-terview at many levels, to explore archives and records,and to do follow-up studies. Involvement of host countrycolleagues, including local assistants and other com munityresidents, is a key to continuity. Thus,linkagesalso refersto cooperation by people with common research interestsin the effort to genera te a fund of data.One example of linkages methodology is the research Idirected in Brazil on industrialization and commercialexpansion, focusing on environmental hazards and riskperception. The investigation proceeded at two levels: (1)nationalBrazil as a whole, where the government intro-duced a policy of industrialization in the early 1950s, and(2) localacross a range of sites differently exposed torisks (Costa et al. 1995; Kottak and C osta 1993). The fieldresearch design was systematic intercommunity compari-son (based on quantitative and qualitative da ta). This meth-odology adds an analytic level to traditional risk analysis,


9/13

K O T T A K / T H E N E W E C O L O G I C A L A N T H R O P O L O G Y 3 1

directlv exposed to environ- that re-

f sites differentially exposed to haza rds. Com pari-

1994.)The linkages approach (summarized in Table 1) accords

man and others who did extended-case analysis,

; Mintz 1985; Nash 1981;Roseberry 1988; SchneiderWallerstein 1974; Wolf 1982).The linkages approach agrees with world system theory

Traditional ethnography, based on village interviews

Not just the old ecological anthropology but traditional

approach em phasizes the embeddedness of comm uni-

team projects (ideally involving interna-ollaboration ). Ideally research is organizedin terms of their differential effects on known

Tab le 1. Linkages methodology summ arized. longitudinal systematic intercommunity comp arison multiple sample popu lations

from same regionfrom different regionsfrom different countries

research extend s to levels at which policies are develop ed interview planners, administrators, others who impinge on the study

populationfs) examine archives and official records research planned as ongo ing process requiring team work key to continuityinvolvement of

host country colleagueslocal assistantsother community residents

consider feedback among local, regional, and national in-stitutions. However, linkages methodology still requires abasis in fieldwork.Putting People and Anthropology First

While recognizing that local and regional systems arepermeable and that contact and power relations are keyfeatures of ecological adaptation, the new ecological an-thropology must be careful not to remove local people andtheir specific social and cultural forms from the analyticframework. We must pay attention to the specifics of localculture and social structureeven though people in manysettings face common problems caused by world systemexpansion. To illustrate the importance of local specificityand of using a distinctively anthropological perspective, Iwill return to the social-soundness analysis I did and rec-ommendations I made for the USAID SAVEM projectaimed at biodiversity conservation in five areas of Mada-gascar. (The Tanosy case described above was drawn fromthis analysis.) To maximize the likelihood of success, theproject's social design for change was founded in the tradi-tional social forms of each target area.The large island of M adagascar features substantial eco -logical and cultural diversity, such that the size and charac-teristics of affected groups varied with type of human eco-logical adaptation, from region to region and even withinthe reserves and other protected areas. The project had asite-specific design, recognizing that affected groups ex-isted at various levels and in different regions. Members ofthe project design team visited five protected areas: theAmber Mountain complex, Beza Mahafaly, Ranomafana,Andringitra, and Andohahela. The social characteristics ofeach area were charted for incorporation in project design.To exemplify, I will describe the different kinds of socialgroups identified to be involved in the project for the four


10/13

A M E R I C A N A N T H R O P O L O G I S T V O L . 1 0 1 . N o . 1 M A R C H 19 9 9

Andringitra in Betsileo country, Andohahela interritory, and A mber M ountain in Tanka-

Ranomafana National Park is a protected area within thehomeland. The Tanala are not a populous and thriv-

conquering armies from Imerina still live in

Social issues are problematic at Ranomafana because ofification patterns. Most of the immigrants have come

is,in gaining local support,Given the extent of poverty, stratification, ethnic diver-

ple who used the forest to hunt and gather for sub-

developm ent part oftheConservation and De-

The Andringitra mountain area is a long-established re-

Nor are issues of stratification and land poverty as

Surrounding Andringitra were at least \3fokontany (village clusters), having about 10,000 total inhabitants. Eachfokontany included smaller villages and hamlets, althoughthere was a tendency toward settlement centralization inthe area because of the fear of cattle rustlers, who were saidto use the forests to hide and dismember the cattle theysteal. (Peasants are also said to use the forests to hide theircattle from rustlers.) Around Andringitra the Betsileo vil-lages lie to the no rth, and the Bara villages lie to the south.I knew the traditional social organization and economyof the Betsileo villages around Andringitra from my pre-vious research in the 1960s. This is a relatively recentlysettled (nineteenth-century) addition to the Betsileo home-land. The local economy combines irrigated rice cultiva-tion with cattle pastoralism. Agriculture is less diversifiedhere focused more exclusively on rice than in the eastern,central, and northern parts of Betsileo territory. The typicalBetsileo village near Andringitra contained branches ofseveral (3 to 5) different clans. The village founders in thissparsely populated and land-rich area were small familymigrants from more densely populated Betsileo areas.They came in search of land for their herds and rice culti-vation. After the French conquered Madagascar they werejoined by freed slaves from Betsileo country and Imerina.All now consider themselves Betsileo but maintain theirdifferent clan foko)affiliations and nam es.

It was likely that project implementation would be eas-ier around Andringitra than in Ranomafana. Both Betsileoand Bara have solitary descent groups, some arranged inlarger associations (phratries). Ties of marriage and bloodsiblinghood linked people in different villages and ethnicgroups. Because irrigation was traditional and widespread,inputs would be appreciated. There was room for agricul-tural diversification. Agricultural outreach seemed appro-priate for this area. Descent group lines could also be usedto enlist support and channel benefits among the Baraaround A ndringitra.Andohahela

Andohahela is located near Fort Dauphin on the south-east coast. Most of the reserve lies in the traditional home-land (Anosy) of the Tanosy people. The reserve has twomain ethnic groups: Tanosy (the numerically predominantgroup) in the east and Tandroy in the west. The mammotheastern part of the reserveby far the largest at 63.100ha.is separated from the western part (12.240 ha.) bynonreserve lands where the Tanosy farm productive irri-gated rice fields. These fields rely on the Andohahela for-ests for their water supply. Unlike Androy (Tandroy land)and the rest of the southeast coast, Anosy is not an area ofstrong emigration. Despite some deforestation near FortDauphin, population pressure on available resources wasless obvious here than at Ranomafana or Amber Mountain(see below).


11/13

KOTTAK / THE NEW ECOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 33

The traditional Tanosy economy is diverse, with bothirrigated rice fields. R oots and tubers (sweet

hern and w estern M alagasy generally.In implementing this project (or any other community-

structures and offices of the state and those

inistrator. His or (rarely) her authority va ries, however,

ny w here one cohesive group predom inates, the person

Both Tanosy and Tandroy retain powerful descentfication of descent gro up heads is vital in im-t give the project their blessing thus maximiz-

l the ethnic groups abutting on An dohahela have

ountainThe area around Diego Suarez in northern Madagascar

. Like the Tanosy near And ohahela and the T anala

mpanjaka)still

s a real and effective prince. The project muston to him, his a ssistants, their customs, and theirber Mountain WW F staff took care (initially at least)

All areas of M adagascar have traditional own ers, called ma sters of the land. The T ankarana are the

the Anjoatsy (a mobile, seagoing group of spiritual-ritualspecialists, with traditional ties to an informal version ofIslam and ports on the east coast). The Anjoatsy have .spiri-tual authority at Ambohitra (Amber Mountain proper). TheWWF staff arranged for an Anjoatsy mpijoro (priest) tobless the park in a traditional ceremony. Similarly, atAnkarana, WWF enlisted the aid of the prince and thepower of traditional Ankarana ritual to enhance coopera-tion with project agents.

There are immigrants throughout the Amber Mountaincomplex area. They include Merina (still hated in the areabecause of their nineteenth-century conquest of theTankarana), Betsileo (including woodcutters working for acommercial firm that posed a threat to the forest), peoplefrom the southeast coast (Taimoro, Taisaka, Zafisoro, etal.). There are also Sakalava (from the west and northerncoast), Tsimihety (from further south), and Com orians. Forgenerations this has been an area of coastal trade (extend-ing to the Com oros and the East African coast), interethniccontacts, and m ixture. The town of Joffreville is a micro-cosm of the ethnic diversity that exists in this region. Al-though it lacked descent grou ps, we did identify some eth-nic,religious, and school associations that might be used inproject implementation, and people still heeded the ances-tral ritual authority ofthetompotany and their priests.Such site-specific analysis and recommendations for aconservation-and-development project illustrate that analysisof social forms should not be subordinated to approachesthat emphasize the environment at the expense of societyand culture, and ecology over anthropology. People mustcome first. Cultural anthropologists need to remember theprimacy of society and culture in their analysis and not bedazzled by ecological data. Funding sources that give pri-ority to the hard sciences, fund expensive equipment, andsupport sophisticated technology should not lead us awayfrom a focus on cultural specificity and social and culturalvariables. Ecological anthropologists must put anthropol-ogy ahead of ecology. Anthropology's contribution is toplace people ahead of plants, animals, and soil.

In ConclusionRomer's RuleThe paleontologist A. S. Romer (1960) developed therule that now bears his name to explain the evolution ofland-dwelling vertebrates from fish. The ancestors of landanimals lived in pools of water that dried up seasonally.Fins evolved into legs to enable those animals to get backto water when particular pools dried up. Thus, an innova-tion (legs) that later proved essential to land life originatedto maintain life in the water. Romer's lessonimportantfor both the old and the new ecological anthropologyisthat an innovation that evolves to maintain a system canplay a major role inchanging that system. Evolution occurin incremen ts. Systems take a series of small steps to m ain-tain themselves, and they gradually change. Rappaport


12/13

A M E R I C A N A N T H R O P O L O G I S T VOL. 101. No. M A R C H 1999

the processes by which organisms or groups of organismshomeostasisin and among themselves in the face

(Rappaport 1971b:23-24, emphasis added).Romer's rule can be applied to development, which, af-

have. Motives for modifying behavioraditional culture and the small concerns of

a better way, increasing technical know-how,conserving biodiversity, or making the world safe for

(Those phrases exemplify intervention phi-Instead, their objectives are down-to-earth andc ones. People want to improve yields in a rice field,

producers may at times differ from those ofcash, just as they differ from the

This is one more way of saying that (ecological) anthro-should not forget culture and people as they grap-

ffected by the organizational material (sociocul-

or history, can freely and mechanically

Notes1. This perspective was formalized at two Wenner-Gren

by Douglas Whiteandheld La Jolla, California, in 1986.Participants, who becameofLinkages:The World DevelopmentRe-

Bur-andDouglas

Linkages' goals include assistinginorganizingandcoordi- ondevelopment on a world-

oftheory, testingof hy- of appropriate databanks for testing

and identifying specific linkages or mechanisms in-insocial change, including development interventions.

A crucial vehiclefordevelopment research, including studof both spontaneousandplanned social change,is thesystematic integrationof data from longitudinal field sites. Such siteallow analysisandevaluationof long-term trendsandeffectsincluding cyclical changes relatingtohuman populationsantheir ecologies, including theecology of world systemsandnetworks.References Cited

Ahmed,A. S.1992 Postmodernism andIslam: PredicamentandPromiseNew York: Routledge.Barbour, Ian,ed.1973 Western ManandEnvironm ental Ethics: Attitudes toward Nature and Technology. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.Barth, Fredrik1958 Ecologic Relationships of Ethnic Groups in SwatNorth Pakistan. American Anthropologist 60:10 7-89.1969 Ethnic GroupsandBoundaries:TheSocial O rganizationofCultural Difference. L ondon: Allen and U nwin.Bramwell, Anna1989 Ecology in the Twentieth Century: AHistory.NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.Bryant, B.,and P.Mohai,eds.1991 Environm ental Racism: Issues and Dilemmas.AnnArbor: UniversityofMichigan Press.

Comaroff, John1982 Dialectical Systems, HistoryandAnthropology: Unitof Study and QuestionsofTheory.The JournalofSouthernAfrican Studies 8:143-172.Costa, Alberto C.G.,ConradP.Kottak, Rosane M. Prado,and John Stiles1995 Ecological AwarenessandRisk Perception inBrazilIn Global Ecosystems: Creating Options through Anthro-pological Perspectives. Pamela J. Putenney,ed.Pp. 71-87NAPA Bulletin 15. Washington, DC: American Anthropo-logical Association.Douglas, Mary,andAaron Wildavsky1982 Riskand Culture:AnEssayon theSelectionofTechnicaland Environmental Dangers. Berkeley: UniversityoCalifornia Press.Epstein,T.Scarlett1978 Mysore Villages Revisited. In Long-Term FieldResearch in Social Anthropology. George Foster,et al.. edPp .209-226. New York: Academic Press.Friedman, Jonathan1974 Marxism, Structuralism, and Vulgar MaterialismMan (n.s.) 9:444-469 .Gezon, LisaL.1997 Political Ecology and Conflict inAnkarana. Madagascar. Ethnology 36:85-100.Greaves, ThomasC.1995 Problems Facing Anthropologists: Cultural Rights andEthnography. General Anthropology 1:1,3-6.Green, Glen M..andRobert W. Sussman1990 Deforestation Historyof the Eastern Rain ForestsoMadagascar from Satellite Images. Science 248 :212-2 15.


13/13

KOTT K / TH E NEW ECOLOGIC L A N TH R OP OLOGY 35

Greenberg, James B., and Thomas K. Park1994 Political Eco logy. Political Ecology 1:1-12.Harris, Marvin1966 The Cultural Ecology of India's Sacred Cattle. Cur-rent Anthropology 7 :51-59 .1974 Cow s, Pigs, Wa rs, and Witches: The Riddles of Cul-ture. New York: Random.Kempton, Willett, James S. Boster, and Jennifer A. Hartley1995 Environmental Values in American Culture. Cam -bridge,MA: M IT Press.Korten, D. C.1980 Comm unity Organization and Rural Developm ent: ALearning Process Approach. Public A dministration Review9-10:480-512.Kottak, Conrad P .1980 The Past in the Present: History, Ecology, and Cu l-tural Variation in Highland Madagascar. Ann Arbor: Uni-versity of Michigan Press.1990 Culture and Econom ic Development. American An-thropologist 9 2:72 3-73 1.

1999 Assau lt on Paradise: Social Ch ange in a Brazilian Vil-lage.3rd edition. New York: McG raw-Hill.Kottak, Conrad P., and E. Colson1994 Multilevel Linkages: Longitudinal and ComparativeStudies. In Assessing Cultural Anthropology. RobertBorofsky, ed. Pp. 396-412. New York: McGraw Hill.Kottak, Conrad P., and Alberto C. G. Costa1993 Ecological Aw areness, Environmentalist Action, andInternational Conservation Strategy. Human Organization52:335-343.Kottak, Conrad P., Lisa L. Gezon, and Glen M. Green1994 Deforestation and Biodiversity Preservation in M ada-gascar: The View from Above and Below. http://infoser-ver.ciesin.org/kiosk/publications/94-0005.txt.Mintz, Sidney1985 Sweetness and Power: The Political, Social, and Eco-nomic Effects of Sugar on the Modern World. New York:Viking.Nash, June1981 Ethnographic Aspects of the World Capitalist System.Annual Review of Anthropology 10:393-423.Pepper, David1984 The Roots of Modern Environm entalism. London:Croom Helm.

Rappaport, Roy A.1968 Pigs for the An cest ors: Ritual in the Eco logy of a New

Guinea People. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.1971a Nature, Culture, and Ecological Anthropolog y. InMan, Culture, and Society. H. Shapiro, ed. Pp. 237-268.New York: Oxford University Press.1971b The Sacred in Hum an Evolution. Annual Review ofEcology and Systematics 2 :23-4 4.1994 Disorders of Our Own: A Conclusion . In DiagnosingAmerica: Anthropology and Public Engagement. ShepardForman, ed. Pp. 235 -294 . Ann Arbor: University of Michi-gan Press.Romer, Alfred Sherwood1960 Man and the Ve rtebra tes, vol. 1. 3rd edition. Har-mondsworth, United Kingdom: PenguinRoseberry, W illiam1988 Political Econo my. Annual Review of Anthropology17:161-185.Schneider, Jane

1977 Was There a Pre-Capitalist World System ? PeasantSocieties 6:20-28.Sponsel, Leslie E., Thomas N. Headland, and Robert C.Bailey, eds.1994 Tropical Deforestation: The Hum an Dimension. NewYork: Columbia University Press.Steward, Julian H.1950 Area Research, Theory and Practice. Ne w York: So-cial Science Research Coun cil.1955 Theory of Culture Chan ge. Urbana: University of Illi-nois Press.1956 People of Puerto Rico. Urbana: University of IllinoisPress.Sussman, Robert W., Glen M. Green, and Linda K. Snssman1994 Satellite Imagery, Human Eco logy, Anthropology ,and Deforestation in Madagascar. Human Ecology 22:333-354.Wallerstein, Immanuel1974 The Modern Wo rld-System : Capitalist Agricultureand the Origins of the European World-Economy in theSixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.Wolf, Eric R.1982 Europe and the People without History. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Date post:	13-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kendra-daugherty
View:	230 times
Download:	0 times

Kottak new eco.pdf

Documents