DOCSLIB.ORG

The New Ecological Anthropology Author(S): Conrad P

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The New Ecological Anthropology Author(S): Conrad P The New Ecological Anthropology Author(s): Conrad P. Kottak Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 101, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), pp. 23-35 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/683339 Accessed: 13/01/2010 16:28 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist. http://www.jstor.org CONRADP. KOITAK Departmentof Anthropology University of Michigan Ann Arbor,MI 48109 The New EcologicalAnthropology Olderecologies have been remiss in thenarrowness of theirspatial and temporal honzons, their functionalist assumptions, andtheir apolitical character. Suspending functionalist assumptions and an emphasisupon (homeo)stasis, "the new eco- logicalanthropology" is located at the intersection of global,national, regional, and local systems, studying the outcome of theinteraction of multiplelevels and multiple factors. It blendstheoretical and empineal research with applied, policy-di- rected,and critical work in whatRappaport called an "engaged"anthropology; and it is otherwiseattuned to thepolitical aspectsand implications of ecologicalprocesses. Carefully laying out a critiqueof previousecologies by wayof announc- ing newerapproaches, the article insists on theneed to recognizethe importance of culturemediations in ecologicalproc- esses ratherthan treating culture as epiphenomenaland as a mereadaptive tool. It closes with a discussionof the methodologiesappropriate to thenew ecological anthropology. ["the new ecology," political ecology, appliedor engaged anthropology,linkages methodology] Ecological anthropologywas named as such during derstandand devise culturallyinformed solutions to such the 1960s, but it has many ancestors, including problems/issuesas environmentaldegradation, environ- Daryll Forde,Alfred Kroeber,and, especially,Jul- mentalracism, and the role of the media,NGOs, andenvi- ian Steward. Steward's cultural ecology influenced the ronmentalhazards in stimulatingecological awarenessand ecological anthropologyof Roy Rappaportand AndrewP. action. While recognizingthat local and regionalsystems Vayda, but the analyticunit shifted from "culture"to the are permeable,the new ecological anthropologymust be ecologicalpopulation, which was seen as usingculture as a carefulnot to removehumans and theirspecific social and means (the primarymeans) of adaptationto environments. culturalforms from the analyticframework. ColumbiaUniversity can be identifiedas the birthplaceof The following reviews the salient features of the old ecological anthropologyand the relatedcultural material- ecological anthropology,setting the stage for an explora- ism of MarvinHarris, which, however, drew as much on tion of importantaspects of an emergingnew ecological Steward's concern with culture change (evolution) and anthropology. culture core as on his culturalecology. More diachroni- cally and comparativelyonented, cultural materialism The Old EcologicalAnthropology and shared with ecological anthropologyan interest in the Its Unitsof Analysis adaptivefunctions of culturalphenomena, including relig- The ecological anthropologyof the 1960s was known ion (e.g., Rappaport's[1968] focus on ntual in the ecology for its functionalism,systems theory, and focus on nega- of a New Guineapeople and Harris's [1966, 1974] analysis tive feedback.Anthropologists examined the role of cul- of the adaptive,conservatory role of the Hindudoctrine of turalpractices and beliefs in enablinghuman populations ahimsa,with special referenceto the culturalecology of to optimizetheir adaptations to their environmentsand in India'ssacred cattle). maintainingundegraded local and regional ecosystems. The ecological anthropologyof the 1960swas known Various scholars (for example, Friedman1974) attacked for systems theory arldnegative feedback.Cultural prac- both ecological anthropologyand culturaJmaterialism for tices were seen as optimizinghuman adaptation and main- a series of presumedfaults, includingcircular reasoning, taining undegradedecosystems. Factorsforcing us to re- preoccupationwith stabilityrather than change and simple think old assumptionstoday include populationincrease systems ratherthan complex ones, and Panglossianfunc- and high-tech-mediatedtransnational flows of people, tionalism(the assumptionthat adaptation is optimal-cre- commerce,organizations, and information.The new eco- ating the best of all possible worlds).Rappaport's distinc- logical, or environmental,anthropology blends theoxy with tion betweencognized and operationalmodels was related politicalawareness and policy concerns.It attemptsto un- to ethnoscience,which grew out of linguisticsbut became AmericanAnthropologist 101(1):23-35. CopyrightC) 1999, AmericanAnthropological Association 24 AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 101, NO. 1 * MARCH1999 anotherexpression of the ecological anthropologyof the ciety, the role of culture(especially ntual) in local and re- 1960s. Flounshing at Stanford,Yale, Pennsylvania,and gional resourcemanagement, negative feedback,and the Berkeley, ethnoscience focused on cognized ratherthan applicationof systemtheory to an anthropologicalpopula- operationalmodels andon classificationrather than action, tion. and it receivedsome of the same criticismsjust mentioned However enlighteningRappaport's analysis may have for ecological anthropology. been for understandingManng adaptation,the limitations The basic units of the ecological anthropologyof the of such an approachfor the study of more complex socie- 1960s were the ecological populationand the ecosystem, ties were apparenteven in the 1960s. I had to confront treated,at least for analyticalpurposes, as discreteand iso- them as I plannedmy own ecological studyof the Betsileo lable units. The comparableunit for ethnosciencewas the of Madagascar,a muchmore populousgroup with a much ethnosemanticdomain (for example, ethnobotany,ethno- more complex (chiefdom/state)?ociopolitical organiza- zoology, ethnoforestry).Assumptions of the old ecological tion. In ThePast in the Present:History, Ecology, and Cul- anthropology,now clearly problematic,are apparentin tural Variationin HighlandMadagascar (Kottak 1980), a some of its key definitions most importantlyecological large-scale comparativeand historical study based on populationand ecosystem. fieldworkdone in 1966 and 1967, I aKemptedan ecologi- Rappaportdefines an ecological populationas "an ag- cal analysisof the Betsileo-some 800,000 peopledistrib- gregateof organismshaving in commona set of distinctive uted over a much larger territorythan the Tsembaga means by which they maintaina common set of material Maring.Combining ethnography with surveytechniques, I relationswithin the ecosystem in which they participate" evaluatedecological adaptation(of the Betsileo and other (1971a:238).Several elements of this definitionmust now Malagasy)by focusingon associationsor bundlesof inter- be questioned.Given contemporaryflows of people,infor- related material variables (correlationsacross time and mation,and technologyacross cultural and social bounda- space) ratherthan by tryingto def1neand demarcatepre- ries, how distinctiveare the culturaladaptive means em- cise local ecosystems. The categories of materialcondi- ployed by any group? Given the fact and recognitionof tions I (like Rappaport)considered included aspects of the increaseddiversity within populations, how commonis the physicaland biotic environmentsand such regionalfactors set of materialrelations within ecosystems?Nor do most as tradeand warfare,but they also extendedto the role of peopletoday participate in only one ecosystem. stratificationand the state in determiningdifferential ac- Rappaportalso characterizesecological populationsas cess to strategicand socially valuedresources. Clearly, the "groupsexploiting resourcesentirely, or almost entirely, ecological analysisof state-levelsocieties could not be the within certaindemarcated areas from which membersof same as thatof bandsand tribes. other humangroups are excluded."Similarly, he defines Madagascaralso raisedthe complicatedquestion of the ecosystem as "thetotal of living organismsand non-living relationbetween culture (ethnicity), ecology, andthe state. substarscesbound together in materialexchanges within FredrikBarth some demarcatedportion of the biosphere"(1971a:238). (1958, 1969)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Environmental Anthropology Engaging Ecotopia an Introduction
    Environmental Anthropology Engaging Ecotopia An Introduction Joshua Lockyer and James R. Veteto We are living in a utopian moment. The majority of humans are already be- ing negatively affected by a number of coupled social and environmental crises. These conditions are created in large part by hegemony of thought and practice that ontologically separates humans from nature, rationalizes the externalization of the social and environmental costs of production and consumption, justifi es extreme inequality, and sees solutions only in a continuation of the same systems that generated the problems in the fi rst place. Together these and other problems constitute a crisis that demands imaginative responses and viable alternatives. We contend that anthropol- ogy must fi nd ways to engage with such existing possibilities. The present crises are not new; the fundamental idea that the current situation cannot continue was recognized decades ago with the rise of international discourse on the topic of sustainable development (Brundt- land 1987). The widely promoted concept of sustainability is ultimately utopian in nature; it is the good state that we must strive for but may not actually exist except in theory. Despite our best efforts, we do not know exactly what a sustainable society looks like. This has been the paradox of utopianism since Sir Thomas More ([1516] 1906) coined the term “utopia” in 1516, and it is the paradox of sustainability today. The premise underlying this volume is the basic belief that, at its best, anthropology has always
    [Show full text]
  • How Do Aesthetics Affect Our Ecology?
    Journal of Ecological Anthropology Volume 10 Issue 1 Volume 10, Issue 1 (2006) Article 5 2006 How do Aesthetics Affect our Ecology? Zsuzsi I. Kovacs Northern Arizona University Carri J. LeRoy Northern Arizona University Dylan G. Fischer The Evergreen State College Sandra Lubarsky Northern Arizona University William Burke Northern Arizona University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jea Recommended Citation Kovacs, Zsuzsi I.; LeRoy, Carri J.; Fischer, Dylan G.; Lubarsky, Sandra; and Burke, William. "How do Aesthetics Affect our Ecology?." Journal of Ecological Anthropology 10, no. 1 (2006): 61-65. Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jea/vol10/iss1/5 This Crib Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Ecological Anthropology by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Vol. 10 2006 Kovacs et al. / Aesthetics and Ecology 61 CRIB NOTES How do Aesthetics Affect our Ecology? Zsuzsi I. Kovacs, Carri J. LeRoy, Dylan G. Fischer, Sandra Lubarsky and William Burke Abstract Beauty is a powerful force that affects both our emotions and our ecological practices, yet aesthetic values remain understated and under-discussed in ecology. Here we invite discussion about the influence of beauty on ecological research by outlining: 1) how aesthetics affect the practice of ecology, and 2) how aesthetics affect the implementation of ecological research on the landscape. The aesthetic sensibilities of ecologists develop through personal experiences and are enriched by professional training, including ecological coursework, fieldwork, research and discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Humanities
    Teksty Drugie 2015, 1, s. 186-210 Special Issue – English Edition Ecological Humanities Ewa Domańska http://rcin.org.pl 186 the humanities and posthumanism Ewa Domańska Ecological Humanities DOI: 10.18318/td.2015.en.1.12 Ewa Domańska is associate professor of theory and history of historiography in the Department of History, Adam Mickiewicz University his article strives to make a preliminary attempt at in Poznan, Poland and defining specific features of ecological humanities1 since 2002 visiting T associate professor at as a symptom of the emergence of a new paradigm. I am the Department of particularly interested in the trend of ecological hu- Anthropology, Stanford manities which has been developing at an accelerated University. Her rate since the late nineties in the frame of posthumanist teaching and research interests include comparative theory 1 In the literature of the subject, ecological humanities is often also of the humanities defined as environmental humanities or sustainable humanities un- and social sciences, derstood as a domain that is actively involved in the sustainable de- history and theory velopment and future oriented conviviality (Stephanie LeMenager of historiography, and Stephanie Foote, “The sustainable humanities”, PMLA, vol. 127, posthumanities and no. 3 (May 2012): 572-578.). In this article I will be using the term eco- ecological humanities. logical humanities (or ecoposthumanities), in order to distinguish She is the author and it from both postmodernist movements of „deep ecology” (which editor of many books, I am referencing), and from „social ecology” tied to the left-wing recently: Existential movements and Marxism, and from technocratic understanding History (in Polish, of environmental and sustainable research, which, according to the 2012); History and critics, are conserving a destructive development of the global the Contemporary capitalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Culture and Sustainability: Environmental Anthropology in the Anthropocene
    PERSPECTIVES: AN OPEN INTRODUCTION TO CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY SECOND EDITION Nina Brown, Thomas McIlwraith, Laura Tubelle de González 2020 American Anthropological Association 2300 Clarendon Blvd, Suite 1301 Arlington, VA 22201 ISBN Print: 978-1-931303-67-5 ISBN Digital: 978-1-931303-66-8 http://perspectives.americananthro.org/ This book is a project of the Society for Anthropology in Community Colleges (SACC) http://sacc.americananthro.org/ and our parent organization, the American Anthropological Association (AAA). Please refer to the website for a complete table of contents and more information about the book. Perspectives: An Open Introduction to Cultural Anthropology by Nina Brown, Thomas McIlwraith, Laura Tubelle de González is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. Under this CC BY-NC 4.0 copyright license you are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. 1414 CULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY: ENVIRONMENTAL ANTHROPOLOGY IN THE ANTHROPOCENE Christian T. Palmer, Windward Community College [email protected] Learning Objectives • Identify the methods and theories anthropologists use to examine human interactions with the environment. • Define political ecology and explain its relationship to anthropology. • Describe the Anthropocene and discuss how anthropology contributes to understanding the human role in environmental destruction.
    [Show full text]
  • Alfred Kroeber Died in Paris in His Eighty- O Fifth Year, Ending Six Decades of Continuous and Brilliant Pro- Ductivity
    NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES A L F R E D K ROE B ER 1876—1960 A Biographical Memoir by J U L I A N H . S TEWARD Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences. Biographical Memoir COPYRIGHT 1962 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES WASHINGTON D.C. ALFRED LOUIS KROEBER June II, 1876-October 5, i960 BY JULIAN H. STEWARD THE LAST DAY N OCTOBER 5, i960, Alfred Kroeber died in Paris in his eighty- o fifth year, ending six decades of continuous and brilliant pro- ductivity. His professional reputation was second to none, and he was warmly respected by his colleagues as the dean of anthropology. Kroeber's insatiable curiosity had not been curtailed, his scientific writing had not slackened, and his zest for living was undiminished. His last illness, resulting from, a heart condition which had been in- curred during the Second World War, came less than an hour before his death. The fullness of Kroeber's life was manifest in many ways.1 He xFor much of the personal information, I have drawn upon several unpublished manuscripts written by Kroeber in 1958 and 1959 for the Bancroft Library: "Early Anthropology at Columbia," "Teaching Staff (at California)," and the typescript of an interview. Mrs. Kroeber has rilled me in on many details of his personal life, especially before 1925 when I first knew him, and Professor Robert Heizer has helped round out the picture in many ways. Important insights into Kroeber's childhood and youth are provided by the late Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • NEW ECOLOGY and the SOCIAL SCIENCES: What Prospects for a Fruitful Engagement?
    Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1999. 28:479–507 Copyright © 1999 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved NEW ECOLOGY AND THE SOCIAL SCIENCES: What Prospects for a Fruitful Engagement? I. Scoones Environment Group, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE, UK Key Words: nonequilibrium ecology, environmental change, environmental social science n Abstract This review asks the question: What new avenues of social sci- ence enquiry are suggested by new ecological thinking, with its focus on non- equilibrium dynamics, spatial and temporal variation, complexity, and uncertainty? Following a review of the emergence of the “new ecology” and the highlighting of contrasts with earlier “balance of nature” perspectives, work emerging from ecological anthropology, political ecology, environmental and ecological economics, and debates about nature and culture are examined. With some important exceptions, much social science work and associated popular and policy debates remain firmly wedded to a static and equilibrial view. This review turns to three areas where a more dynamic perspective has emerged. Each has the potential to take central elements of new ecological thinking seri- ously, sometimes with major practical consequences for planning, intervention by CAPES on 10/27/05. For personal use only. design, and management. First is the concern with spatial and temporal dynam- ics developed in detailed and situated analyses of “people in places,” using, in particular, historical analysis as a way of explaining environmental change across time and space. Second is the growing understanding of environment as both the product of and the setting for human interactions, which link dynamic structural analyses of environmental processes with an appreciation of human agency in environmental transformation, as part of a “structuration” approach.
    [Show full text]
  • New Perspectives on Organism-Environment Interactions in Anthropology Emily Schultz St
    St. Cloud State University theRepository at St. Cloud State Anthropology Faculty Publications Department of Anthropology 2013 New perspectives on organism-environment interactions in anthropology Emily Schultz St. Cloud State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/anth_facpubs Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Schultz, Emily, "New perspectives on organism-environment interactions in anthropology" (2013). Anthropology Faculty Publications. 2. https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/anth_facpubs/2 This Chapter in a Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Anthropology at theRepository at St. Cloud State. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of theRepository at St. Cloud State. For more information, please contact [email protected]. New perspectives on organism-environment interactions in anthropology Emily A. Schultz St. Cloud State University [email protected] Abstract Anthropologists contend that the organism-environment connections responsible for human evolution are indirect—mediated by culture. This chapter reviews influential twentieth-century anthropological interpretations of the cultural mediation of human adaptations to environments, arguing that ethnography and other qualitative forms of analysis reveal important phenomena overlooked by quantitative analysts committed to methodological individualism. It highlights work by post-positivist
    [Show full text]
  • Routledge Handbook of Environmental Anthropology
    This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 27 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK Routledge Handbook of Environmental Anthropology Helen Kopnina, Eleanor Shoreman-Ouimet Ethnobiology and the New Environmental Anthropology Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315768946.ch3 E. N. Anderson Published online on: 12 Aug 2016 How to cite :- E. N. Anderson. 12 Aug 2016, Ethnobiology and the New Environmental Anthropology from: Routledge Handbook of Environmental Anthropology Routledge Accessed on: 27 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315768946.ch3 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 3 ETHNOBIOLOGY AND THE NEW ENVIRONMENTAL ANTHROPOLOGY E. N. Anderson Introduction Ethnobiology has moved through several stages: descriptive, cognitive-analytic, ecological, widely inclusive, and multidisciplinary. The field has rapidly evolved from one concerned with the ancient traditions of small-scale societies to one concerned with all aspects of environmental knowledge and wisdom.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Syllabus for M.Sc. in Anthropology
    Syllabus for M. Sc. in Anthropology From Academic session 2020-21 onwards Department of Anthropology Central University of Orissa Koraput Page 0 of 70 M.Sc. in ANTHROPOLOGY As per UGC Gazette notification dated 4th July, 2018; ‘Credit’ means the Unit award, gained as learning outcome, by a learner by study efforts required to acquire the prescribed level of learning in respect of that Unit; Explanation: It is hereby clarified that a study effort for one credit means time required by a learner to understand the contents equivalent to 15 hours classroom teaching., or one hour teaching in a week. In this syllabus some courses are 4 credit weightage, and some are 2 credit weightage. For the easy assessment to calculate percentage, though all courses are marked 100 marks, but the weightage of course content is more for 4 credit course then two credit course. Semester-I Semester-I: General Anthropology Course Course Code Title Credits Full Mark No. 1 ANT – C 311 Biological Anthropology -I 4 100 2 ANT – C 312 Socio-Cultural Anthropology 4 100 3 ANT – C 313 Archaeological Anthropology 4 100 & Museology 4 ANT – C 314 Research Methods 4 100 5 ANT – C 315 Tribes in India 2 100 6 ANT – C 316 General Practical – I 2 100 Semester-II Semester-II: General Anthropology Course Course Code Title Credits Full Mark No. 7 ANT – C 321 Biological Anthropology -II 4 100 8 ANT – C 322 Theories of Society and 4 100 Culture 9 ANT – C 323 Pre- and Proto- History of 4 100 India, Africa and Europe 10 ANT – C 324 Indian Anthropology 4 100 11 ANT – C 325 Peasants in India 2 100 12 ANT – C 326 General Practical – II 2 100 Students can perform summer internship programme during summer vacation, which will be treated as Audit Course and will be reflected in the Grade Sheet.
    [Show full text]
  • A Glimpse of Evans-Pritchard Through His Correspondence with Lowie and Kroeber
    JASO 27/1 (1996): 21-45 FROM THE ARCHIVES A GLIMPSE OF EVANS-PRITCHARD THROUGH HIS CORRESPONDENCE WITH LOWIE AND KROEBER Selected and Introduced by PIERO MATIHEY Introduction WHILE scholars have always differed in the ways they handled their personal papers, the emergence of computers, fax machines and, above all, electronic mail has considerably altered the documentation of academic work. Historians and biographers will almost certainly regret the end of the era in which letters were either typed or written by hand. In the past, there were scholars who systematical­ ly filed their incoming mail, along with carbon copies of their outgoing letters. Whether this happened by plan or by chance, invaluable material became available for historical research, once these files reached a public archive. Of course, there were always those who, lacking storage space or an eye for history, or having the more deliberate aims of privacy and confidentiality, destroyed some or all of the papers in their possession. The mediaeval historian Emst Kantorowicz, for example, who taught at Berkeley in the 1940s, sometimes went so far as to ask his colleagues to destroy his letters once they had been answered. No trace whatsoever was to remain (Professor Yakov Malkiel, personal communication). But as a general rule, the decision to destroy records is restricted to what is in one's own hands. One cannot eliminate what has become the property of others. E. E. Evans-Pritchard, for example, decided not to leave certain kinds of information to succeeding generations, and, during the last years of his life, apparently disposed of every item of correspondence in his personal papers (Dr 22 From the Archives Godfrey Lienhardt, personal communication).
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Anthropology.Pdf
    Ecological Anthropology Author(s): Benjamin S. Orlove Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 9 (1980), pp. 235-273 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155736 Accessed: 08-02-2017 10:17 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155736?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Anthropology This content downloaded from 14.139.45.242 on Wed, 08 Feb 2017 10:17:07 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 1980. 9:235-73 Copyright i 1980 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved ECOLOGICAL +9656 ANTHROPOLOGY Benjamin S. Orlove Division of Environmental Studies and Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, California 95616 INTRODUCTION Ecological anthropology may be defined as the study of the relations among the population dynamics, social organization, and culture of human popula- tions and the environments in which they live. It includes comparative research as well as analyses of specific populations from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives.
    [Show full text]
  • ELTE Faculty of Social Sciences Cultural Anthropology MA Short
    ELTE Faculty of Social Sciences Cultural Anthropology MA Short Descriptions of Compulsory Courses Introduction to Cultural Anthropology Course is built on the assumption that cultural anthropology, on one hand, is a discipline that defines itself based on its research subjects (the “primitives”, cultures outside of Europe, etc.), however, on the other hand, it can be regarded as an approach that is commonly used to analyze various social structures and cultural situations. The aim of the “Introduction” course is to demonstrate the potential application of cultural anthropological approach in social research; what cultural anthropology can communicate as “unusual” or unique. Objective of the course is to familiarize students with the defining nature of cultural anthropology, its trends, specific methods and cultural anthropological theories developed in relation to culture in general and its elements (such as economy, social organization, religion, art, and other forms of consciousness, etc.); to help students recognize the world’s cultural diversity in order to develop sensitivity toward other cultures, prepare them to be able to identify and understand those, and be able to mediate the process of acceptance of social and cultural differences. History of Cultural Anthropology – An Introduction Course content: The birth of cultural anthropology, significant “armchair” anthropologists (classical evolutionism: Lewis Henry Morgan, Edward Burnett Tylor, James George Frazer, Emile Durkheim; the German-Austrian "Kulturkreis"-school; the British heliocentric diffusionism; Marcel Mauss; Robert Hertz, Arnold Van Gennep) Anthropological Theories and Methods General objective of the course is to introduce the history of development of cultural anthropological theories and methods to the students. Specific objective, in addition to a general, all-encompassing presentation, is to bring home to students the understanding of how theory and method “goes together” in the history of anthropology.
    [Show full text]