The Wari’ people are a indigenous Amazonian group with a complex understanding of our concepts of body, soul, and humanity. The Wari’ see these concepts as fluid, rather than stagnant. Additionally, these concepts are applied more broadly to living and non-living things rather than being restricted to humans or even living things. Aparecida Vilaça’s study of this rich culture makes an attempt to translate the Wari’ ideology in terms of our own understood constructs of body, soul, and humanity. These Chronically Unstable Bodies possess a possessive kwere which is used to describe the Wari’ concept of body. Much of the Wari’ understanding relates back to this concept of kwere. In fact, even reproduction is understood as reconstruction of the body rather than creation. Other concepts like humanity are seen as a condition, rather than an identity. Such a condition (wari’) is applied to a diversity of beings. This condition is based on geographic proximity, so all beings within proximity to the Wari’ are considered to be a member of the wari’ identity. In their understanding of what we would refer to as the soul, the jam is a source of instability within a being. Jam can be lost by being, such as spider monkeys, and beings seen as healthy and active are without jam. Vilaça recognizes that there is a rich culture in the Wari’ understanding of life and one’s self. This community is an example of a nature-dominated culture in which the Wari’ believe their central livelihood is dominated by these chronically unstable bodies.
Monthly Archives: September 2017
3: Gender and the Environment
Do different genders relate to nature differently? Dianne Rocheleau claims that there are in fact, real differences in the way women relate to their environment. In fact, there is even a diversity in the different types of understandings on this topic. Rocheleau’s article analyzes the similarities and differences in the ecofeminist, feminist environmentalist, socialist feminist, feminist poststructuralist, and environmentalist perspectives. The author’s research into the intricate ideologies led to several common themes throughout different perspectives. First, the types of roles that women typically occupy lead them to have a different experience relating to and observing nature. Second, women are more likely to be invested in domestic interests, rather than commercial. Third, the institution of environmentalism and feminism are most commonly studied by plain observation rather than precise scientific tools. Fourth, several ideologies call for a holistic integration of the management of the environment and human health as many often recognize that these two directly correlate with each other. Fifth, most women’s environmental movements are somewhat based in Sandra Harding’s elements of the feminist critique. Rocheleau establishes a new perspective based on these common identities: feminist political ecology. The intersection of culture/nature is different for everyone and to assume that there is only one type of relationship between these two concepts diminishes the experiences of others which should instead, be valued.
2: The Benefit of the Commons
Hardin’s famous Tragedy of the Commons ideology is widely accepted doctrine among environmentalists. Private access to natural resources leads to an optimal outcome for some but a negative outcome for others. Open access to natural resources leads to suboptimal outcomes for all, but this form of access can be environmentally unsustainable. Berkes (et al) argues that in some circumstances, community-based control policies provide sustainable regulation of natural resources. Berkes highlights several specific case studies to support his claim. The beaver population in James Bay, Canada was on the brink of extinction but conservation efforts and new community-regulated control institutions led to a resurgence of the population. Lobster harvesting in Maine has been proven to be more bountiful if territories are established and there is no competition for specific areas. In New York’s Bright region, a co-op approach to fishing leads to more equitable and reliable fish supply. Fisherman have to meet quotas and entry prices are high to satisfy a sustainable supply-demand equilibrium. In Thailand and elsewhere in East Asia, the nationalization of forests has led unsuccessful control efforts. Often, by nationalizing acccess to resources, it ends up being pseudo-controlled and more akin to open access. Efforts in Thailand to manage the forests at a national level instead of localized, community control led to a degradation of the resource. In summary, Berkes argument goes against Hardin’s convention. Commons access is an important discussion and localized, community-access control is a sustainable cultural institution to manage natural resources.
1: Smallholders, Householders
While smallholder farming sacrifices direct economic and social progress, its indirect effect on economic and social systems makes it more sustainable than industrial agriculture. This argument, presented in the excerpt from Robert Netting’s book, asks three questions: What is the metric for social progress? What is sustainability? Is evolutionary progress inversely correlated with progress towards sustainability? Netting highlights the cultural evolutionist theory that a society’s agricultural productivity is directly correlated with quality of life. As less human labor is required for food production, societies are allowed to focus on their own social development. Netting’s excerpt prefaces an argument against this idea. Rather, according to Netting, small-scale (or smallholder) farming has a smaller environmental footprint which indirectly leads to social and economic benefits. Netting recognizes that it is difficult for societies to maintain their more sustainable behaviors when the alternative is a more productive, industrial solution. Still, Netting defends his claim that smallholder farming is the more sustainable food system that we, as a global culture, should be working towards. Netting’s ideas are one example of the argument that occurs between culture and nature. Smallholder farming occurs in the area of defining culture within nature. That is, the practice of farming occurs as a cultural necessity (a social construct required for economic vitality). Industrial agriculture, however, is nature defined within culture. Biological productivity is seen as a system, regulated and maintained through industrial processes. Any attempt to define nature, within culture, as Netting claims, is unsustainable.