Description
Assignment Instructions (Page 1 of Chapter 13, on Culture and Sustainability, of your textbook poses the question, “What political, economic, and cultural factors are prohibiting world leaders from agreeing on solutions to global environmental challenges?” (Brown, Tubelle de Gonzalez, and McIlwraith, 2017). Textbook Reference: Palmer, C. (2017). Culture and Sustainability. Brown, N., Tubelle de Gonzalez, L., & McIlwraith, T. (2017). In Perspectives: An Open Invitation to Cultural Anthropology (pp. 1–20). Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association. For this assignment you will write a letter, to the world leader of your choice based on the concepts you are learning in this course. The letter should be about potential solutions to global environmental challenges. Please include the following: Describe political, economic, and cultural factors you see as prohibiting world leaders from agreeing on solutions to global environmental challenges. You will need to support your points with information from the textbook. Be sure to consider the political, economic, and cultural factors from a broad, anthropological perspective. Argue for a recommended next steps for the world leader. Describe clear next steps and keep your recommendations grounded in a broad anthropological perspective or support your recommendations from an anthropological perspective. The letter should be double-spaced and formatted in Times New Roman 12 point font. The letter should be 1-to-3 pages. Be sure to cite any factual sources you used (including your textbook) with parenthetical, in-text citations. Include an APA-style reference page as well.
13: Culture and Sustainability (Palmer)
Culture and Sustainability: Environmental Anthropology in the Anthropocene
Christian T. Palmer, Windward Community College
ctpalmer@hawaii.edu
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.
Explain how anthropology contributes to public discussions and the creation of public policy with lawmakers, activists,
corporations, and others regarding major environmental challenges.
LIVING IN THE ANTHROPOCENE
We live on a planet where the climate—winds, precipitation, weather, temperatures—is being modified by the collective
impact of the human species. I arrived at anthropology through an interest in understanding human impacts on the
environment. I began by studying ethnobotany as an undergraduate and received a master’s degree in environmental science.
As I researched human-environmental dynamics, I realized that scientists had largely identified what needed to be done to
address many of the world’s pressing environmental problems, but few of the recommended changes had been adopted,
thwarted by political, cultural, and economic forces. Anthropologists’ approach is holistic; they seek to simultaneously
understand all of the interactions of political, cultural, and economic factors to fully explore the complexity of humanenvironmental
interactions. Thus, I felt that anthropology provided a good place to start to understand and begin to address
some of the most important questions facing our species. For example, how can we provide for basic human needs while not
sacrificing the welfare of other species? Why do many people say that they care about protecting the environment but then do
nothing about it? What political, economic, and cultural factors are prohibiting world leaders from agreeing on solutions to
global environmental challenges? To answer such questions, we must understand how humans think and act as groups, our
socially and culturally mediated ways of interacting with each other, other species, and the world around us.
Arriving at Environmental Anthropology
In many ways, anthropology as a discipline is only now starting to address these questions. In December 2014, Bruno Latour,
a French anthropologist, spoke to a standing-room-only audience at the American Anthropological Association annual meeting
in Washington, D.C., to discuss the relationship between the Anthropocene and anthropology.1 Anthropocene is a term used to
describe the period (or epoch) in geological time in which the effects of human activities have altered the fundamental
geochemical cycles of the earth as a result of converting forests into fields and pastures and burning oil, gas, and coal on a
large scale. Because human activities have changed the earth’s atmosphere, anthropologists can make important contributions
to studies of geology, chemistry, and meteorology by considering the effects of humans and their cultural systems. As Latour
noted, the discipline of anthropology is uniquely qualified to provide insight into key components of current environmental
crises by determining the reasons behind choices various groups of humans make, bridging the social and natural sciences, and
studying contradictions between cultural universals (traits all humans have in common) and particularities (interesting cultural
differences).
This chapter summarizes how anthropologists have contributed to analysis and resolution of environmental concerns. I begin
with a brief overview of anthropological analysis of human interactions with the environment and then explore how
anthropological perspectives toward human-environmental interactions have changed over time. I end the chapter with a call
to action—an invitation for students to use lessons they have learned from anthropology to challenge the kinds of thinking that
have produced current environmental crises and see where those anthropological approaches take them. Environmental
anthropology is an exciting subfield that will grow in importance as questions of environmental sustainability become
increasingly central to scientific and popular conversations about the future of our species and the planet.
Humans and the Environment
4/7/2020 13.2 CC-BY-NC https://socialsci.libretexts.org/link?20897
If we think about anthropology from the classic four-field approach, which includes both physical anthropology and
archaeology, many of the questions with which those disciplines have historically wrestled were related to our species’ longterm
relationship with the environment. Around two million years ago, climate changes decreased the amount of forest and
expanded grasslands in Africa, which led to the early Hominin radiation (the geographic expansion of multiple Hominin
species). It also led hominin species to walk upright, which freed their hands to make and use tools. Subsequent climate
changes, particularly expansions and contractions of glaciers associated with ice ages, also contributed to Homo sapiens
expanding to new parts of the globe.
Fast-forwarding to the beginning of human agriculture roughly 10,000 years ago, we can see how the global expansion of
Homo sapiens and their first permanent settlements and urban centers led to the development of agriculture, a profound new
way of interacting with the environment. The ability of early humans to shape the landscape, first by simply encouraging wild
plants to grow and later by planting and irrigating crops and domesticating plants and animals, set humans on the path toward
our current problematic relationship with the planet. Archaeologists’ questions about human diets, tools, and architecture
inevitably explore how ancient civilizations interacted with their environments. For example, archaeologists examine the
relative frequency of different kinds of pollen and tree rings over thousands of years to understand how landscapes changed
over time through both human and natural processes.
Many archaeologists credit increased productivity that came with agriculture as the foundation of civilization, allowing
humans to live in larger settlements, specialize in craft production, and develop social hierarchies and eventually math,
writing, and science. From this perspective, the seeds of social complexity were contained within the first grains domesticated
in the hills surrounding the Fertile Crescent. Others have questioned the idea that the effects of agriculture were purely
beneficial. For example, Marshall Sahlins called foraging (hunter-gatherer) societies “the original affluent societies” and noted
that hunter-gatherers had more leisure time, healthier diets, more time to socialize, and greater social equality than agricultural
or even industrial societies.2 He also noted that they were affluent not because they had everything, but because they could
easily meet their basic needs of food, shelter, and sociality. Others have looked at the advances in science, medicine, and
communication technology and disagreed with Sahlins, arguing that we are better off with the developments brought by
agriculture. Sahlins’ critique of agriculture (and subsequently of civilization) should not be seen as a suggestion to
deindustrialize; rather, it is a challenge to assumptions that Western civilization and its technological developments necessarily
represent improvements for human societies. Perhaps the strongest argument against capitalism and industrialization is the real
possibility of environmental collapse that those systems have brought.
Sahlins’ analysis calls into question the idea that humans as a species are necessarily progressing through history and
encourages us to think about how “necessities” are culturally constructed. Do we really need cars or cell phones to be happy?
How about books and vaccines? Because many of our innovations in technology, agriculture, and transportation have come at
the expense of the natural systems that support us, we need to think about human “progress” in relationship to its impact on the
environment. The impacts of climate change from our dependence on fossil fuel, toxic byproducts from expanding chemical
industries, and pollution of land, soil, and water from industrialized agriculture are a significant challenge to a vision of human
history in which we expect things to get better and better.
4/7/2020 13.3 CC-BY-NC https://socialsci.libretexts.org/link?20897
Archaeological evidence of collapses of earlier societies—Harappan cities in the Indus River Valley, the Maya in Central
America, and the Rapa Nui of Easter Island, for example—provides a sobering warning as many pre-historic cultures’
practices were, at some level, environmentally unsustainable, leading to deforestation, soil salinization, or erosion.
For example, archaeologists have explored the collapse of a number of Maya cities from an environmental perspective.3 After
examining samples of pollen from nearby lakebeds, they determined the relative abundance of various ecosystems, such as
cornfields and pine forests, over time. They found that deforestation in the uplands associated with an expanding population
around the Maya city of Copan was one of the factors that led to the city’s decline. Land was cleared to increase agricultural
production and to harvest wood for the construction of houses, fueling cooking fires, and producing lime, which was used to
make plaster for large-scale construction projects. The study suggests that prehistoric groups’ lack of adequate environmental
management systems could have affected their ability to maintain their complex urban societies—a warning for society today.
Another fascinating story of the complex relationships between culture, plants, and the economy relates to development of
sugar cane plantations in the Caribbean. Anthropologist Sidney Mintz documented how our sweet tooth led to development of
the slave trade, industrialization, capitalism, and colonization in the Americas.4 He examined how sugar went from being a
luxury good associated with the upper class as a spice and medicine to a regular staple for factory workers. The increased
consumption of sugar associated with industrialization provided financial incentives for continuing slavery and colonization
projects in the Americas. Mintz’s work is not usually described as environmental anthropology, but his careful documentation
of the relationship between people and sugar cane clearly demonstrates the importance of certain species of plants in shaping
human history.
The question of how humans interact with their environment through hunting and gathering, agriculture, and deforestation is
central to understanding how human groups meet their basic needs and continue to survive and develop. By examining these
4/7/2020 13.4 CC-BY-NC https://socialsci.libretexts.org/link?20897
past and present cultural configurations critically and carefully, anthropology provides a valuable perspective from which to
understand such environmental questions.
Sustainability and Public Anthropology
Environmental anthropology provides an opportunity for anthropologists to engage in larger public debates. The American
Anthropological Association, for example, recently issued a Statement on Humanity and Climate Change meant to “to
recognize anthropological contributions to global climate change-related issues, articulate new research directions, and provide
the American Anthropological Association with actions and recommendations to support and promote anthropological
investigation of these issues including the development of course curricula and application of anthropological theory and
methods to the issues.”5 Such statements emphasize the importance of anthropological contributions to current scientific and
political debates.
Anthropologists have become involved in environmental causes around the world. In Brazil, for example, they have worked
with indigenous groups to maintain land claims, prevent deforestation, and organize against construction of large hydropower
projects that threaten the river ecosystems.6 Others have challenged development of parks throughout the world as a major
conservation strategy for biodiversity and explored the impacts of those parks on local communities.7 Studies of these diverse
topics benefit from incorporation of an ethnographic perspective that emphasizes the importance of identity politics,
connection to place, and cultural beliefs for understanding how groups of people interact with their environment. This work
also reminds us that environmentalism and conservation are grounded in sets of beliefs, assumptions, and world views
developed in Western Europe and North America and must be translated as environmentalists work in other cultures.
Environmental anthropology naturally lends itself to use of anthropological perspectives to inform and engage in public policy
decisions, land-use management, and advocacy for indigenous communities, urban minorities, and other groups that are often
under-represented in places of power and in traditional environmental movements. In that sense, environmental anthropology
is a way to inform and connect with a variety of other disciplines that address similar questions of sustainability. Regardless of
whether you decide to study anthropology, understanding the value of anthropological insights for environmental questions
will allow you to better appreciate and understand the complexity of environmental questions in modern society and potential
solutions. The next section examines the diverse ways that anthropologists have historically looked at the humanenvironmental
dynamic, highlighting some of the key theories, methods, and approaches and how they have developed over
time.
CULTURAL ECOLOGY
Early Cultural Ecologists
One of the earliest anthropologists to think systematically about the environment was Leslie White. His work built on earlier
anthropological concepts of cultural evolution—the idea that cultures, like organisms, evolve over time and progress from
simple to more complex. White described how cultures evolved through their ability to use energy as they domesticated plants
and animals, captured the energy stored in fossil fuels, and developed nuclear power.8 From this perspective, “human cultural
evolution was best understood as a process of increasing control over the natural environment” through technological
progress.9 White’s conclusions are at odds with Franz Boas’ historical particularism, which rejected theories based on
evolution that labeled cultures as more advanced or less advanced than others and instead looked at each society as a unique
entity that had developed based on its particular history. Like earlier anthropologists, White viewed anthropology as a natural
science in which one could generate scientific laws to understand cultural differences. His model is useful, however, when
exploring the nature of change as our society increasingly harnessed new sources of energy to meet our wants and needs. He
was writing at a time when the U.S. economy was booming and our technological future seemed promising, before the
environmental movement raised awareness about harm caused by those technologies.
How the Future Looked 50 Years Ago
This National Public Radio Planet Money episode captures the enthusiasm for technological progress at the 1964 World’s Fair,
when little was known about the environmental damage such technologies would cause. How did people see the future in
1964? How is their idea of the future different from ours today?
Anthropologist Julian Steward first used the term cultural ecology to describe how cultures use and understand their
environments. His fieldwork among the Shoshone emphasized the complex ways they had adapted to the dry terrain of the
4/7/2020 13.5 CC-BY-NC https://socialsci.libretexts.org/link?20897
Great Basin between the Sierra Nevada and Rocky Mountain ranges. He described how a hunting and gathering subsistence
economy that relied on pine nuts, grass seeds, berries, deer, elk, sheep, antelope, and rabbits shaped Shoshone culture. Their
detailed knowledge of various microclimates and seasonal variations in resource availability structured their migration
patterns, social interactions, and cultural belief systems.10 Rather than looking for single evolutionary trajectories for cultures
as White had done, Steward looked for multiple evolutionary pathways that led to different outcomes and stressed the variety
of ways in which cultures could adapt to ecological conditions.
Both White and Steward were influenced by materialism, a Marxist concept that emphasized the ways in which human social
and cultural practices were influenced by basic subsistence (economic) needs. Both were trained as scientists, which shaped
how they looked at cultural variation. Steward was also influenced by processual archaeology, a scientific approach developed
in the 1960s that focused primarily on relationships between past societies and the ecological systems they inhabited. The shift
in anthropology represented by White and Steward’s work led to increased use of scientific methods when analyzing and
interpreting data. In subsequent decades, movements in both anthropology and archaeology criticized those scientific
perspectives, challenging their objectivity, a process I examine in greater detail later in this chapter.
Pigs and Protein
Subsequent anthropologists built on the work of White and Steward, looking for ecological explanations for cultural beliefs
and practices. They also drew on newly developed computer science to think about dynamic feedback systems in which
cultural and ecological systems self-regulate to promote social stability—homeostasis. Some fascinating examples of this work
include Roy Rappaport’s work in Papua New Guinea and Marvin Harris’ work in India.
Marvin Harris examined Hindu religious beliefs about sacred cattle from functional and materialist perspectives. Among
Hindus in India, eating beef is forbidden and cows are seen as sacred animals associated with certain deities. From the
perspective of a Western beef-loving country, such beliefs may seem irrational. Why would anyone not want to eat a juicy
steak or hamburger? Rejecting earlier academics who regarded the Hindu practice as illogical, Harris argued that the practice
makes perfect sense within the Hindu ecological and economic system. He argued that cows were sacred not because of
4/7/2020 13.6 CC-BY-NC https://socialsci.libretexts.org/link?20897
cultural beliefs; instead, the cultural beliefs existed because of the economic and ecological importance of cows in India. Thus,
Hindu restrictions regarding cows were an “adaptive” response to the local ecological system rather than the result of Hindu
theology.11 Harris explored the importance of cattle for milk production, dung for fuel and fertilizer, labor for plowing, and
provision of meat and hides to the lowest caste, untouchables, who were able to slaughter and eat cows and tan their hides
because they were already seen as ritually impure.
Roy Rappaport examined subsistence practices of the Tsembaga in Highland New Guinea, a group that planted taro, yams,
sweet potatoes, and sugar cane and raised pigs. Rappaport used scientific terms and concepts such as caloric intake, carrying
capacity, and mutualism to explain methods used by the Tsembaga to manage their resources. A population of pigs below a
certain threshold provided a number of benefits, such as keeping villages clean by eating refuse and eating weeds in
established gardens that had relatively large fruit trees that would not be damaged by the pigs. Once the population reached the
threshold, the pigs ate more than weeds and garbage and began to create problems in gardens. In response, the people used
periodic ritual feasts to trim the population back, returning the ecological system to equilibrium. Rappaport, like Harris, used
ecological concepts to understand the Tsembaga subsistence practices, thus downplaying the role of cultural beliefs and
emphasizing ecological constraints.
These early cultural ecologists viewed cultures as trying to reach and maintain social and ecological equilibrium. This idea
aligned with ecological thinking at the time that emphasized the balance of nature and the importance of the various
components of an ecosystem in maintaining that balance. However, environments and cultures were rapidly changing as
colonization, globalization, and industrialization spread throughout the world. In many of those early cases, anthropologists
had ignored these larger processes.
As ecologists began to develop more-complex models of how ecosystems change through long-term dynamic processes of
succession and disturbances (such as storms, droughts, and El Niño events), anthropological approaches to the environment
also changed. The next sections examine those shifts in anthropology as environmental movements developed in response to
increasing degradation of natural environments.
Early anthropologists were notable for their attempts to understand how different groups of people interacted with their
environments over time. Their work paved the way for future environmental anthropologists even though they generally were
not directly concerned with environmental problems associated with modernity, such as pollution, tropical deforestation,
species extinctions, erosion, and global warming. As people around the world became more familiar with such issues,
environmental anthropologists took note and began to analyze those problems and accompanying conservation movements,
especially in the developing world, which was still the primary focus of most anthropological research.
ETHNOECOLOGY
Slash-and-Burn versus Swidden Cultivation
Traditionally, anthropologists studied small communities in remote locations rather than urban societies. While much of that
work examined rituals, political organizations, and kinship structures, some anthropologists focused on ethnoecology: use and
knowledge of plants, animals, and ecosystems by traditional societies. Because those societies depended heavily on the natural
world for food, medicine, and building materials, such knowledge was often essential to their survival.
As anthropologists, Harris and Rappaport worked to make the strange familiar by taking seemingly bizarre practices such as
ritual slaughtering of pigs and sacredness of cows in India and explaining the practices within the context of the people’s
culture and environment. This work explains not only how and why people do what they do, but also the advantages of their
systems in the environments in which they live. An indigenous practice long demonized by the media, environmental activists,
and scientists is slash-and-burn agriculture in which small-scale farmers, mostly in tropical developing countries, cut down a
forest, let the wood dry for a few weeks, and then burn it, clearing the land for cultivation. Initially, the farmers plant mostly
perennial crops such as rice, beans, corn, taro, and manioc. Later, they gradually introduce tree crops, and the plot is left to
regrow trees while they open new fields for crops. Every year, as the soil’s fertility declines and insects become a problem in
the original plot, new land is cleared to replace it. Environmentalists and developers have decried slash-and-burn cultivation as
a major cause of deforestation, and governments in many tropical countries have prohibited farmers from cutting and burning
forests.
Anthropologists have challenged these depictions and have documented that slash-and-burn cultivators possess detailed
knowledge of their environment; their agricultural processes are sustainable indefinitely under the right conditions.12 When
4/7/2020 13.7 CC-BY-NC https://socialsci.libretexts.org/link?20897
there is a low population density and an adequate supply of land, slash-and-burn cultivation is a highly sustainable type of
elongated crop rotation in which annuals are planted for a few years, followed first by tree crops and then by forest, rebuilding
soil nutrients and mimicking natural processes of forest disturbance in which tree falls and storms periodically open up small
patches of the forest. They used the term swidden cultivation instead of slash and burn to challenge the idea of the practice as
inherently destructive. The surrounding forest allows the fields to quickly revert to forest thanks to seeds planted in the cleared
area as birds roost in the trees and defecate into the clearing and as small rodents carry and bury the seeds. Furthermore, by
mimicking natural processes, the small patches can enhance biodiversity by creating a greater variety of microclimates in a
given area of forest.
The
