Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Introduction: Anthropological Perspectives On Environmental Destruction

    Uploaded by

    Vladia Luna
    10 views11 pages
    Painter (1995) Introducción: Perspectivas antropológicas de Destrucción Ambiental. En Painter, M. y Durham, W.H. (eds.). The Social Cau- ses of Environmental Destruction in Latin America. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, pp. 1-21

    Original Title

    Introduction: Anthropological perspectives on Environmental Destruction

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Painter (1995) Introducción: Perspectivas antropológicas de Destrucción Ambiental. En Painter, M. y Durham, W.H. (eds.). The Social Cau- ses of Environmental Destruction in Latin America. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, pp. 1-21

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    10 views11 pages

    Introduction: Anthropological Perspectives On Environmental Destruction

    Uploaded by

    Vladia Luna
    Painter (1995) Introducción: Perspectivas antropológicas de Destrucción Ambiental. En Painter, M. y Durham, W.H. (eds.). The Social Cau- ses of Environmental Destruction in Latin America. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, pp. 1-21

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 11
    Introductior Anthropological Perspectives on Environmental Destruction Michac Painter Anthropological Stade of Production and Environment “Anthropology has offered numerous insights into how people perceive tnd use the cavironmeat, and athropoogss have substantially a0g- ‘mented public anarens of the environmental problems that face com temporary societies. Ye, despite a tradition of studying the relationship between the sci! ves of human populations an thle physical su roundings, environmental destruction and what todo about i have not ‘been defined as anthropological research issues by the discipline. AS@ rent, diecusions about how humans ase land and other nara re: sources are replete with references to culture, indigenous knowledge ‘Systems, institutions that define and epuate resource acces, and ote ‘concep substantially or totally drawn fom anthropological esearch Interpreting the significance ofthese concept for environmental policy and polled action, however, hss been lrgly eft 10 nonanthr- polos, For example the Antiropology Newser, the bulletin of he ‘American Anthropological Asclaon, complains “Two cover stories on the environment (Time Magazine, “Toch- fag the Amazon: Can the Raiaforest be Saved?” September 1, 1989; and Slee America, Special Issue: “Managing Plan Ean,” September 189) are peppered with anthropology-tlevant [et euture,” "peasans,” “Neoliic,” “humankind,” “deertieae tion," end'so oa, Yet anthropologists are neither quoted or ced anynbere in the magazine (emphasis retained! tom the orginal text] (AN 30[8}2 [No. 1989). ‘One reason that anthropologists 6 not recive the attetion we think we deserve ita isusions of anthropological theory have often denied or overiooked the relationship betwecn poi interests and scholarly theory (eg Ehlers 199), despite the strong relationship that, ht existed betneen the two ln important ress of anhropolgil2e- search. Speck (191), for example, investigated the relationship be- ‘ween property right and aaufal resource husbandry among Native “American popoltions of North Amerss around the tr ofthe entry Hisdiscusions of how these population dened hunting terntorar over hich kin groups exercised ealsive rights, and parsed resouree maa Agement satgies intended to prevent the depletion of fish and pane te remembered forthe importance in refuing the evlutooary model of social organization proposed by Lewis Henry Morgan. That his data Were atheed as par ofan effort 1o resist the Canadian goverament— Shick sought to support private groupe hoping to take over Native “Americas lndsis often forgotten (Feit 186)" ‘Since the time of Speck, the tlaionship betwesn people and the physical envionment hasbeen an import sue in anropoogial Fevcarch, Kroeber (139) and Water (103) examined the peograptic ‘stbuton of ultra wits and developed the concep of clr ares. However, anthropologists were concerned that this not be linked to ‘eavirnmental determin argaments hat ought o expan and uty the domination of much of the world by people fom the temperate Iniades of the northern hemisphere through references to climate f= tors that supposely favored 2 particulary vigorous snd indesiws population. This discouraged an examination of human relationship o the environment asan neractive process and omphaszed aman tans formation and appropriation of thet suzoundigs, wih the earon rent accorded only psive "posbiist” role (Herskovits 195), “The pasivty secorded the eaviconmental side of the human- ‘eavirnmental relation reached ts extreme inthe eines! evo ‘onin of White (199), which dened cuturalevluion i terms of man capaci o capture energy Lom the eavzcnment. White argued that “environmental factors may... legtimael be considered con ‘ant and a such omitted! from our consideration” (1989:198). Con: cved in am era when human capacity to use techaclogy to capture ‘neray rom new sources appeared unlimited, White's model considered ‘only the total amount of energy captured. White di not consider the ‘eticiensy with which energy was used, sor how populations might re- ‘spond t0 resource scary, It is telling thatthe major critique of Uninear evolution (Steward 1855) focused on demonstrating that ht- ‘man responses toa given set of condition are more variable and malt ‘heeted than allowed for by White, wil the eas of he pasty of he ‘environment andthe expacy of humans to extract ever creasing quan tite of energy fom it were not rca examined Stewarts approach turned onthe was in which people use technol- ‘ogy toexplit or transform te environment through prodacton,Prodic- tion was technical acivty mediating adaptation to the environment, land the way people used natural resourees o produce was funtion of ‘echnolopcladvancemest. Sova organization could change axording tothe ned to manage a paricular productive atviy sta given levelof ‘technology, and within the passive constiats imposed by the eovison- ‘ment. Reacting 10 anthropology’s tendency to link history to elre history, which was rooted the dea that culture rats diffused from one population io another and embodied rejection af evoluonary models of soci] change, Steward largely rejected ahistorical perspective, The lanthyopologcal view of histor, be fel, Wapped one in particulars explanations of change that precluded aking speci cates to general processes (1955:78-87, 208-28) “Thus, in The People of Puerto Rico (1956), which was the fed éemonstation of reseach methods behind mullinar evolution, Siew- tard argued that change in production paces and woilogaszation| shouldbe explained in terms of environment and technology “The method of cutral ecology requis frst an examination ofthe relationship of techalogy, or productive proces, othe environ: ‘ment. Next itis necessary to ascertain the elu apd environ ‘mental factors which our certain ofthese toe selected by the ew ‘trea. Finally the movificatios in the productive process ina new ‘environment must be anaed and ther effects upon other aspects ‘of care determied. When 1 particular exploitative technology ‘suchas fenming introduced «ow regio, the local 0s, 10pog- ‘apy, minal, climate and other envzonmenta facors wil sully require modifications in methods f production and inthe related pattems of marketing, lad tenure, cooperation, and setlement patterns (Stemard 1986:15) Stewards cultural eology method erstalized problems that have ‘omtinued to latuence anthropological approaches to how humans ap- propriate astral resources. Fist, because his notion of production fo. ‘used on the technical rlalousip bewecn the immedate users of 2 technology and the environment, contetialzng loa situations ith respec 1 renal, maonal, and steeaional processes presented 8 continuing diffcly: Second, Steware's rejection of the idiosyncratic roton of history that fad developed in anthropology extended to 3 ‘ejection of history generally. Tis endered cultural ecology sent Synchronicin its perspective, and unable to explin very well bow leat ‘Stuaton had come tobe. ‘Many eothropologis continued to treat production a 9 technica process and to pay litle atteation to the historia contest in which it ‘Severed, Sacsessve rneremental refinemens in lecigues or meas ing sspecte of production permitted anaes Io be increasingly Bc ted. Tho resting modes were deseripie rather than expaRaery, however. Moreover, the descriptions were based on normative sa tment shout production nd te environment. Fall emphasizing the harmony between natural seiouces and human objectives, they por tuajed production systems in terms of a stability that often bor Te resemblance to etal contions. “Anthropologie ako pered in stempting 1 divorce sien ‘endenvor from the pial content in which i cece, bt their do Sexipive model leat themselves to polizally charged deciioas about lund use pliy an pratie. For example, Hjort (192), erties ec0- logical model of pastoral production ser in Aca or thez norma tive descriptive guaity. He pists out tht the “normal” condition sone ‘of enreme seasonal and annual vation in raifll and vegetation, ond constant alteration ‘between periods of scarcity and_ abundance (098215) In addon, ecological modes fi to consider the chronic Tana grating to which pastoral population have been sjeced. THs “normal” condition fr contemporty pastoral peoples has resulted in losis oftheir Ind to goverment officials and other largely wrbas- based elites, reducing the geographic and biological very fo which ‘they have acess (Hort 1982:20; Lite 198), Irotcion 5 Hirt continues that weatng production asi it were pat of a sell repulatng stem tat sometimes gets ot of balance for technical re sons may identify the symptoms of covironmental degradation, but ‘vcs addressing the real causes, soc 2 inequtesin acess 1 criteal resources, Te implications of sch an approach may be dsastous or the pastoral population itself. Asuming that system tends tobe bal snced and sell epulating makes i easier demonsete the rationality of production. But, since mest moder stems are aot iolated, 6 ‘would be necessary forthe posited slt-eglting mechanisms to fe tion, wating for them fo balance themicves without addresing such ‘neue as exteraal competition for lod and cher uaplanted changes ‘may bea fatal for pastoral people asa crect saul on ther way of ie (jor 1980:22-23. Treating techaical aspects of production, without ‘coniderig the strc ive ofhow a production tem came tbe or ‘thou contertualzing iin trms of competing interes in the sae ‘esoures, provides information that may be manipulated in various ‘raj tothe detrient ofthe polcally wekes peopl with an intrest ‘nan ates For example, Hjort sees models that weat systems as sel regulating as promoting passvy inthe fae of ries in pastoral produc: tion. At the sme time, as Horontz (196) and Sanford (1983) point fut, focusing on the tech aspects of how a pra herd manage ‘ment practice degrades the environment, without pling the practic in broader content invites the interpretation that pastoralists themselves fre desrctv, Such arguments have frequently ben wed to july forced sedentarztion and various schemes 1 spare herders from ‘helrand ‘Deitethe etic of cultural ecology a conceived by Steward and his descendants in anthropology, The People of Puen Rico also [rovided the forum fora diferent approach tothe study of human ‘roduction tat has come to offer more fut ing oto how and ‘hy eavionmental degradation occur? Whle Steward aecorded his {ory ide importance in constectig explanations of production and environmental change, the volume contains an extended historical di son (Sta 1956) thats emariable on two counts. The fact that contained in « vohime whose introduction, describing the method and ‘theory on which the stay was based, accords hisry no importance is sugestive ofthe limiaions thatthe searchers ound ia elural ea ‘ogy uly for interpreting te sgicance of the rch body of data collected bythe study. Rosebery (1978 observes (6 The Soda! Comer Eavroamenal Deacon a Las Ameria “While the invesigator mention the importance of “the environ ‘ment and Steward mentions the importance of “histor” the two statements of method ate incompatible. The disagreements are stated in polite academic language. Bu any socal scentist who has ‘dsagred with teacher ora colleague inthe course of a seminar or 4 joint project should recognize what is eally being sid (197:31) [At the time Steward wrote, the moet common use of historical materials by entbropologis wast justly the reiation of cura partials ties, Stewards rection of the importance of history was 9 reaction to this tendeney. The remarkably extensive historical dscusion in The ‘People of Puerto Rico departs from conventional scusions of Mstory by anthropologist explain the variation a Puerto Rian subeultares in terms of local responses to the demands exerted by international ‘commodity markets and the resulting global reorganization of produc: ‘on lations (Sta 16:32). Despite the significance ofthis inteyrative foes, twas nt without its own shortcomings. For example, the study focused on srctral production defied in a narro, empiral sense, and while ft makes any references fo exeral force, capa fe exp seased (Roseberry 197833. Asa rsut, phenomena tach a migration to the USS mainland, which were locally important but oved ber origin and ‘perpetuation to forces that mere at work intemationaly, were not ‘considered “The Puerto Rio project, fm ts concentration on agriculture, tailed to come to grips wih the poical and econo ores that estab- shed that agate in te fst place, and that were already at ‘workin “Operation Bottrap” to taneorm the agricul land Tato andra service staon. Wedd not understand the Ways Which island isttubors, supposealy “ational but actualy inter locked with mualand economies and pols, mere butegouads for diverse contending interests. (Wel! 1950588) Nonetheless, though its carey crafted casestudies of diferent ge ‘altura production regimes and the historical dcussion that Joined them, The People of Puerto Rico demonstrated tht puters of produc tion and resource axe ae more than te outcome ofthe application of partalr level of technology 10 set of environmental contain. Invotucion 7 Rather, the dfnton of wht satura resources ae inportat nap ‘elaine an plc, Now soo wha end they sexed, and he ‘vera elaestipof th population to the pal environmen ow fro the wal realons at dete and repute teen xz © thon natural resources “The rool of asequn cue afeing parefsceutral snthopolgy was ese by the boreal nd metboloial pound ‘yoken bythe Pueno Reta erate. Fot example, ite 16s eco ‘omic antroplogy became mien crc dacnion abot he a ‘Popriatencsoaphng mal ccoomie ais on Westra oc eo such an eet tat tome scholar thoght we esting the His os wy asa rea ot ingiry. Thesoltion tered wan hat fconomieanthropsloge shuld wae eclgeal mk aa mena of derstanding on-Wextern prodicion stems (eg Vaan 197, 1968). Trough ts we of store analy o stow bow the divene stations of spr planaton workers independent xfer pone tad ‘vei fy farmers 0 inked throgh the eeroretion and ‘uboriaon of produto aang to up apa matty ‘The People of Puera Bio showed tow teenies, con. tmoly perceive, ant techclogy ae socal const otomes of producionraons between peopl, rater shan empiri gens on ‘hich to base soil anes, Sabvegoet anthropologists 8. Cook 1973, 1974) tented production srs socal procers oruing between hums, for the satsacton of sometimes config seed, ether than ss. tcinea espns by en Udilrentated popeaon to codons Inthe psa mire ‘The Socal Canes of Envtroamenta Degradation ‘By examining resource use in terms of soil purpose, anthopoloical ‘esearch has shown thatthe people who contol access to astral r- sources andthe nttatona arrangement though which that contol ‘mediated shape the vrs of resource management pace that wil be followed within the constant the physical environment. Rather than {reating the environment sa pastve ety that pone broad at Tnuman activity, sach an apprch focuses onthe dynam lationship ‘between human productive avy and the physical resource base. The ature ofthis sctivty i shaped by the soil determination of what onsite erica natural resources ata parica time and place, the isbaton of access to those resources, and the natute ofthe ist tinal rangement mediating that acces, ‘Wolf (1972) has described such an approach tothe study of human production as “political eology," a a nuber of anthropologist have opie the notion productively othe stadyof environmental epria ton. Hjrt (1952) made exc ute ofthe term in is etque of models ‘of pastoral land use, ted above, e id Sehmink and Wood (1987) thelr suggestion of six clements etal to the waderstanding of ete: ment and environmental dearection affecting the Amazonian lowers ‘These elements include (1) the ature of production ina egon, and, parc, the degre to which it is rented toward simple reproduction ‘reap! accumulation; (2) the class suctre ofthe soda 10 which the region in question belongs an te ines of confit over a= 0 ‘productive resources; (3) the exent and hinds of market relaont Sich producers ae lavolved, and the mechanisms whereby productos Beyond that needed to satisfy consumption requirements extocted a ‘surplus; (4) the rle ofthe state in defining and executing plies that favor the interes of certain classes of revurce were over eters: (3) international attest, such as donor agencies or private investors, at may rupportparteuarpaters of resource as: ad (6) the SIDE) that orients resource we—for example, the posiion that rapd eco- nomi growth isthe best way to addres socal and environmental roblems—and what group benef fom tht ecogy Research based on thea point that has examined environmesta ‘destruction in Latin Americas carted several tues that ae central to ‘any plan of ection seeking to reverse or ameliorate the problem. Fist, ‘cvitoamental destruction siroiated with the production systems of ‘Smalling farmer is «conquence of their impovershment, either ‘Absolute or relative to thersocl inst, This impoverishment often has ‘occured together with os oflnd and sojection‘o violence tthe hands ‘of weathy individual and corporate interess engaged inland speculation ‘andofstate autores (eg, Colis 1980), Second, While ease acess. ‘malloldrs has mest thatthe environmental desuston aso ‘nth heirproductonsytemshareoivedthe mosatention, much more Iand bs been degraded by the atvies of wealthy indivi and corpo. rate interes. Generly large-scale enterprises tat hae acted deste: tively have been grated land on concessionary terms the tate exer ing sovereignty over the acai which they operate. Thisallows them to {teat land as low-eos input, and makes itmore economical to move Inroducion 9 ‘lkewere afer the environments degraded than it woud e 1 ty to ousecve(¢ Bakx 1987; Binswanger 1991). Third, the same policies and practices that result in wealthy interests reciving la on cones” onary tems ae responsible forthe impovershment of smalloldes, because thy institutionalize snd exacerbate unequal acess to resoures “Thus, the crcl sue underlying environmental destruction in Latin “America is pos inequity in accesso resources (Pinter 150), ‘Toe chapters included inthis volume draw on data gathered ia ‘central and" South America to strate the socal and economic processes that undee envzcamental degradstion and underdevelop- ‘eat Tndvidaly and collectively, the chapters argue that addres these sees means dealing exc withthe fact that both processes ‘occur in complex societies joined to one another by a global economy land ecology, and chiraceized by socal clases wih fundamentally

    You might also like