University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Ecological and Environmental Anthropology Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center (University of Georgia) for 2005 Ecology & Anthropology: A Field Without Future? Gerald Schmidt Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmeea Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Schmidt, Gerald, "Ecology & Anthropology: A Field Without Future?" (2005). Ecological and Environmental Anthropology (University of Georgia). 33. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmeea/33 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Ecological and Environmental Anthropology (University of Georgia) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Vol. 1, No. 1 Ecological and Environmental Anthropology 2005 Notes and queries Ecology & Anthropology: A Field Without Future? Dr. Gerald Schmidt Positive Ecology Project (www.positive-ecology.org) Many disciplines take part in the discourse Environmental(ist) analyses, focusing on on sustainability. Sustainability science tends to sustainability as a global issue, have led to focus on the side of nature and to misunderstand expanded fields of anthropological inquiry. Yet the human condition; social sciences tend to focus prominent eco-anthropological studies rarely on their respective specialties and on “nature” as address situations outside of traditional concept, but rarely take ecological reality into anthropological settings. Research meant to account. Environmental and ecological inform potential futures, in particular, is hardly anthropology as disciplines that address both sides ever undertaken – the more salient lack of "future" are in a peculiar position. They move beyond the in the discipline. For ecology, Palmer et al. (2004) dualism of nature-culture to a holistic view on have argued that the discipline could no longer be ecological and cultural realities in their intrinsic the science of nature without human involvement, connectedness. Their input will become more but needs also to be the science that informs important as sustainability is considered in sustainability, i.e. shows how we can manage abstracted discussion (e.g. academic and activist nature in ways that do not threaten ecological discourse), but not in individually and (inter-) functioning. Their "ecology for a crowded planet" culturally relevant terms, as sustainability still misses the necessity of considering how discourse looks towards practice as an issue of humanity can ‘manage itself’ in order to achieve a “the economy” and technology, but not as an transformation to sustainability. After all, we aspect of culture (as world view and as normal cannot only manage the environment while way of life, of which the economy is only a placing ever-increasing demands on it. subset). Anthropological and psychological findings Like conservation biology, eco-anthropology will also have to be brought to bear on how we tends to be a crisis discipline. However, whereas it approach the cultural change of humanity towards is species threatened with extinction that make up sustainability (culture meant in its inclusive sense, the crisis that requires conservation, from what are considered normal ways of life and ethnoecologies are the ‘threatened species’ of of making a living to economics and technology, ecological anthropology. The challenge that the and the accompanying cognitive shifts). Eco- “objects” of eco-anthropology present is even anthropology could greatly contribute to the more complicated than that of species analysis and actions towards such a conservation. After all, we encounter both forms transformation, in regards both to aspects of of traditional environmental management that nature (local environmental management) and to appear to be sustainable and forms of aspects of culture (“cultural resources for management that do not appear to be so – where sustainability,” ways of living and of making a there is a willing motion towards a Western, living). After all, it is a discipline that has been “modern” way of life and resistance to such analyzing both of these sides, but only in terms of development(s) – as well as combinations thereof. what has been going on heretofore. It will yet be Whatever the exact situation, the result is that the necessary for eco-anthropology to expand its crisis discipline provides a detailed chronicle of perspective towards “futures.” the problems, but not much more. As such, it The relevant backdrop to this argument lies could not have a future, certainly not a very with the question of motivation for change. Or, interesting and important one. For example, it put the other way around, it lies with the two shares this fate with linguists’ studies of challenges that support business-as-usual: First, languages in a world of ever-decreasing linguistic the issue of denial versus involvement – the diversity. question “What do I need your environment for?” 13 Vol. 1, No. 1 Ecological and Environmental Anthropology 2005 (I have actually been asked that) – and secondly, appear to have played a large part alongside the issue of positive visions of sustainable futures. societal reactions to their change (Diamond 2005). Denial is apparent in how environmentalist Motivation by positive, sustainability- issues are oftentimes considered to be separate oriented, visions for futures is a more complex from the normal affairs of – “modern” (Western) issue still. The sustainable alternative, or rather: – daily life. (As the “Cartesian” dualism of nature- set of alternatives (e.g. with differential cultural culture, this separation is foundational to Western and local-environmental ‘fittedness’), is not thought.) Each individual’s personal role and commonly presented as modern, progressive, and responsibility, as well as other stakeholders’ promising – in contrast to the alluring, even if involvement, fall prey to denial as well (Opotow “virtualist” (Carrier and Miller 1998), vision of & Weiss 2000). In contrast, a transformation to cornucopian economists. Rather, it appears to sustainability will involve everyone, requiring entail the abandoning of amenities of modern life deep cultural changes as involvement progresses. (for ‘developed’ countries) or the inability to ever Secondly, on the flip side of denial as described attain them (for ‘developing’ countries), in favor above, environmentalist issues are considered a of “the planet,” “the next generation(s),” or the luxury that only the “modern,” well-off can afford like, thus fomenting de-motivation (Kaplan 2000). to concern themselves with. ‘Developing’ Anthropology, at the very least, points out countries supposedly needn’t pay attention to the diversity of salient aspects of life supported by them, and if you wanted to be rich(er), you different cultures. As Trouillot (2003:138f.) shouldn’t either. Actually, in varying concludes, the capitalist(-only) ideology is configurations, sustainability is an issue that “actually a choice” rather than a necessity, and involves both ‘modern’ and ‘developing’ societies "we owe it to ourselves and to our interlocutors to – it is ultimately a necessity for the poor say loudly that we have seen alternative visions of (Martinez-Alier, 2002). humankind ... and that we know that this one may The actual fallacy of such denial is easily, not be the most respectful of the planet we share, and has repeatedly been, shown (although it is not nor indeed the most accurate nor the most very popular to admit it, let alone reconsider practical ... not the most beautiful nor the most economics on that basis). A case in point optimistic.” Among other things, elements of (particularly interesting because of its futuristic Western culture as well as of other cultures tinge): Were humanity to attempt longer-term support non-material aspects of a good life that space exploration (or terraforming, for that may yet become instrumental in a shift away from matter), it will require knowledge of ecological consumerism, to ways of life which could easily functioning and a 'co-evolution' of technology and be more conducive to happiness, as well as more ecology to provide for the astronauts' needs. Both amenable to sustainability (Kasser and Kanner, NASA and the ESA actually do have departments 2004). performing ecological research. Points such as this lie at the core of a Staying on earth, examples for the possible “positive ecology” (Schmidt 2005), an inextricable linkage of human beings to this world approach oriented on the synergies between abound. At the most basic level, the provision of human long-term survival, short and long-term basic sustenance stands in a dynamic relationship chances for a good life, and ecological between ecosystem services, agriculture, and sustainability, that arise with the deep biodiversity. Water availability and quality is relationships between human needs and global influenced by land cover and usage, not only ecology. These make for the likelihood that geophysical conditions (and even these are sustainability-oriented ways of life – humanity in influenced by life). Even for cultural identity, an coexistence/coevolution with a biodiverse, increasingly important issue as globalization sustainable ecosphere – are actually not encroaches upon it, natural features play a role. detrimental to quality of life, but promising. Anthropology