Little, Paul (1999). Environments and Environmentalisms in Anthropological Reserch

7/28/2019 Little, Paul (1999). Environments and Environmentalisms in Anthropological Reserch

1/33

Environments and Environmentalisms in Anthropological Research: Facing a New Millennium

Author(s): Paul E. LittleSource: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 28 (1999), pp. 253-284Published by: Annual ReviewsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/223395

Accessed: 06/02/2009 10:16

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 athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs.

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 organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAnnual Review of

Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/223395?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/223395?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/33

Annu.Rev. Anthropol.1999. 28:253-84Copyright? 1999 by Annual Reviews. All rightsreserved

ENVIRONMENTS ANDENVIRONMENTALISMSINANTHROPOLOGICALRESEARCH:Facing aNew Millennium

Paul E. LittleDepartmentofAnthropology,Universityof Brasilia, CaixaPostal 04304, Brasilia, DF,Brazil, e-mail: [email protected]

Key Words: political ecology, nature/culturedualism, global-local dynamic,anthropology of environmentalism, Amazonia* Abstract With the concept of environment as its organizing motif, thisreview focuses on two general fields of anthropological environmental re-search: ecological anthropology and the anthropology of environmentalism.Analysis of the complementary political and human ecology researchprogramsis structured around four theoretical and methodological areas: transformationsin the ecological paradigm, levels of analysis andarticulation,the use of history,and the reemergence of space. Ethnographic analyses of the social forces of en-vironmentalism point to civil society as an emerging and important protagonistwith regardto environmental issues, and these social forces are reviewed withinthe categories of environmental movements, rights, territories, and discourses.A final prospective section looks at contemporaryurban,viral, virtual, andwar-fare environments andpostulates that the combination of empirical andpoliticalapproaches can provide for anthropology an expanded role, one that has strongbioethical implications, in environmental debates and issues.

CONTENTSIntroduction ........................................... ....... 254Ecological Anthropology ...................................... .. 255Political and HumanEcology ........................................ 255Transformationsn the Ecological Paradigm ............................ 257Global, Regional, and Local Levels of Analysis andArticulation ............ 259EnvironmentalHistoryand Historical Ecology .......................... 261

0084-6570/99/1015-0253\$12.00 253


3/33

254 LITTLETerritory,Place, and Landscape ...................................... 263The Anthropologyof Environmentalism........................... 264EnvironmentalMovements .......................................... 264EnvironmentalRights ............................................. 267EnvironmentalTerritories ........................................ 268EnvironmentalDiscourses ........................................... 270

Prospectus:FacingA New Millennium............................. 273INTRODUCTION

For the past two decades, anthropologicalresearchon environmental ssues hasbeen partof a broadpublicspherethat haswitnesseda sharp ncreasein environ-mental concerns and activism throughoutthe world. That has, in turn, beenaccompaniedby significant interrelationalchanges between humans and theirenvironment,resultingfromthe use of new communicationandbiological tech-nologies. Given the breadthand complexity of environmental ssues, academicdisciplinary boundariesare easily crossed and new sites of transdisciplinaryresearchhave emergedthat combine naturaland social-scientific approaches nuniqueways. Anthropology,however, has specific contributions o make to thewiderenvironmental esearchfield.Incommonusage, the termenvironment s oftenusedas a synonymfornature(i.e. thebiophysicalornonhumanenvironment),but thisusage createsgreatcon-ceptualconfusionbecausethe environmentof a particularhumangroupincludesboth cultural and biophysical elements (Rappaport1979). By extension, theorganism/environment ynamic,which is relational(Levins & Lewontin 1985)andperspectivist(Viveiros de Castro1996), is often erroneouslyfused with thenature/culture ualism,which is essentialistandsubstantive.Theconceptof envi-ronmentas a researchtool allows for the delimitationof a wide rangeof socio-naturalunits of analysis (Smith & Reeves 1989) that transectthe nature/culturedivision orthogonally.Inthis context,the termenvironmentalism efersto anexplicit, active concernwith the relationshipbetween humangroupsandtheirrespectiveenvironments.Although"environmentalist"suallyrefersto politicalactivists,the termcanrea-sonablyincludepersonsandgroupsthataredirectlyinvolvedwith understandingand/ormediatingthis relationship.Thus,anthropologistsand othersocial scien-tists who areinvolved in environmental esearchcan be consideredas represent-ing the environmentalwing of theirrespectivedisciplines.Current nvironmental esearch n anthropology alls intotwo majorareas hathave distinct methodologies and objects of study. The first, called ecologicalanthropology,uses ecological methodologiesto studythe interrelationsbetweenhuman groups and their environment.The second, called the anthropologyofenvironmentalism,uses ethnographicmethodologiesto studyenvironmentalismas a type of humanaction.These two areasprovidethe organizingmotif forthisreview. It concludeswith aprospective ook atnew environmentsandtheircorre-spondingnew environmentalisms hataregaining importance n the world.


4/33

ENVIRONMENTALNTHROPOLOGYThisreview is indicative,rather hanexhaustive,in that t analyzesrepresenta-tive or insightfulworks thatexemplify significantnew trendsor areasof interest

in anthropological nvironmental esearch.Specialattention s given to workthatconcernsthetropicalrainforests particularlyheAmazon)becauseof the impor-tance these biomes have to planetaryenvironmentalissues. Publicationswithimportanttransdisciplinarydialogue and debate by practitionersin particularfields of studyarereferred o throughout he review.ECOLOGICALANTHROPOLOGYPolitical and Human Ecology

Nearlytwo decadesago, Orlove(1980) provideda criticalreview of the literatureon ecological anthropology nwhichhe noted theadvanceof"processualecologi-cal anthropology"as a stage that was gradually supplantingneofunctionalistapproaches.Oneinfluentialcurrentwithinprocessualecology is "human ystemsecology," initially developed by Bennett (1976), whose long-termwork withagricultural ystems led him to the notion of "humanecology as humanbehav-ior,"whereby culturalelements are translated nto active behavioraltendenciesinvolving "responsesand adaptationsmade by real people in real-life contexts"(Bennett 1993:45-46).During the 1980s, actor-based,decision-makingmodels used in processualecology were combined withpoliticaleconomy approachesused in anthropology(see Roseberry 1988), which led to the emergenceandconsolidation of a signifi-cantresearchprogram,newly termedpolitical ecology. An earlytheoreticalout-line of political ecology (see Schmink& Wood 1987)was appliedto thesouthernPararegion of the BrazilianAmazon,where a host of "contestedfrontiers"wereuncovered involving disputes between multiple social actors over their defini-tions of, access to, andcontrolovernatural esources(Schmink&Wood 1992). Inanethnographicanalysisof the local strugglesbetweenfarmersandranchersoverlandandwater in apeasantcorporatecommunity n northwesternMexico, Sheri-dan(1988) developsapoliticalecology analysisthatplacesthese struggleswithinthe contextof interventionby regionaleconomic interests,seasonalwatershort-ages, andthemediationof governmentbureaucrats t local, regional,andnationallevels.Onestudy(Stonich 1993)placestheagencyof ruralpeasantsattheforefrontofenvironmentaldestruction in southernHondurasbased on their "strategiesforsurvival"and, at the same time, it reveals the largerdevelopmentalistcontextwithin which these strategies and degradationoccur. In 1994, the Journal ofPolitical Ecology was launchedattheUniversityof Arizonawiththe goal of con-tributing"criticallyandsubstantivelyto an increasedunderstanding f the inter-action between political and environmental variables broadly conceived"(Greenberg& Park1994:8). Injust a decade,the political ecology researchpro-gram in anthropologydeveloped a high level of empirical (DeWalt 1998) andpolitical (Hvalkof & Escobar1998) sophistication.

255


5/33

256 LITTLE

Geographerswere also developing a researchprogramin political ecologyduringthis time (for an earlyandinfluential theoreticalstatementsee Blaikie &Brookfield 1987). Furthermore,geographers elaborated a political ecology,which they termed iberationecology, thatincorporates ontemporarypoststruc-tural heoryon discourseandmeaning(see forexamplePeet & Watts1996). Bry-ant & Bailey (1997:192), however, are hesitant to take the "turn o discourse,"since it "may result in a turn away from the material issues that, after all,prompted he birthof ThirdWorldpolitical ecology in the firstplace."In 1988, theUniversityof Californiaat SantaCruzinitiateda new publicationthathelped consolidatea neo-Marxianperspectiveto political ecology research.Thejournal-Capitalism, Nature,Socialism-subsequently entered nto aninter-nationalcollaborationwith three sisterjournalspublishedin French,Italian,andSpanish. The notion of the "second contradictionof capitalism" (O'Connor1998:158-77) is thatcapitalistrelations of productionand forces of productionimpairor destroytheirown social andmaterial"conditionsof production."Con-sequently, this notion places contemporaryenvironmentalcrises within theframeworkof the worldwide expansion of capitalismand offers an alternativereadingof the emergenceof the environmentalistmovementas a potentialsocialbarrier o capitalistaccumulation.One innovative work (Leff 1995:21) assertsthat "thefunctionalstructure f ecosystems, insofaras theydetermine heproduc-tivity of naturalresources,affects the conditionsof productionof value andsur-plus value."Flourishinghumanecology studies coincided with the consolidation of thepolitical ecology researchprogramand have moved in many new and fruitfuldirections.Theinterdisciplinaryournal,HumanEcology, provedto be animpor-tant forum for a host of anthropological studies that adopted ecosystemapproaches see also Moran1990) dealingwiththespecific culturalandbiophysi-cal requirementsof foragers,pastoralists,and subsistenceand intensive agricul-turalists(Bates & Lees 1997). Anotherkey contribution o these studies is theextensive, cross-culturalresearchon households-understood as both agricul-turaland social institutions-carried out by Netting (1993). Based on numerousempirical studies, Netting proposes theories regardingissues such as propertyrights,landuse, populationgrowth,food production,and sustainableagriculture.Similarly,a detailedethnographyby Sillitoe (1996) of how the Wola of Papua,New Guinea,manageandshapetheirwet, steepterrain s insightfullycombinedwith essential scientific information concerning climate, soil types, landresources,andbiotic factors.Withinthe broader ield of ecological anthropology,politicaland humanecol-ogy can be consideredas complementaryresearchprograms hat have differenttransdisciplinary mphases.Anthropologicalpolitical ecology has establishedadialoguewith geographyandpolitical economyandhas developeda strongcriti-cal approach n which concepts such as claims, rights,power, and conflicts pre-dominate.Anthropologicalhumanecology has establisheda dialogue with thebiological sciences andhas developeda strongempiricalapproachn which con-cepts such as energyflows, knowledge systems, subsistence,andadaptationpre-


6/33

ENVIRONMENTALNTHROPOLOGYdominate.Thepowerof theircomplementarinessies preciselyinthe union of thecritical with the empirical approach.In addition, the ecological methodologycommon to bothconfrontsthem with similar theoreticalandempiricalproblems,which are addressed n the contexts of (a) paradigmatic hifts, (b) levels of analy-sis andarticulation, c) the use of history,and(d) the reemergenceof space.

Transformations n the EcologicalParadigmThenature/culture ualismhasprovidedthebaseline for the greaterpartof scien-tific thinking throughout his centuryandhas strong,often unrecognized,meth-odological and epistemological implications for research, including theseparationof thenatural rom the social sciences,bothinstitutionallyandintellec-tually.New ecological research s engagedin thedifficult,challenging processoffinding practical ways of bridging this divide, and anthropology,which hasalways worked on both sides of the nature/cultureence, is strategicallysituatedto contribute o this effort.Unfortunately, he radicalizationof the nature/culturedualismduring he 1990s hasunduly compromised his strategicposition by pro-vokingthe so-called science wars,which have involved a greatdeal of conceptualmudslingingand which have even led to formalsplits in universityanthropologydepartments.As a result,the developmentof an ecological theorythat incorpo-rates naturaland culturaldimensions within a single, broadparadigmatic rame-work is more urgentthan ever. It is, in fact, being hammeredout far from thebattlefield of the science warsby anthropologists rommany countriesworkingwith peoples and theirenvironmentalproblemsthroughout he world.One of the primaryproblemsfaced by ecological theorists is how to addressbothnaturalandsocial phenomenawithin a single explanatory ramework.Envi-ronmental historians have been particularlysensitive to this problem. Dean(1995:9), in his history of the Brazilian Atlantic forest, treats that forest as a"natural ubject";Worster 1993:123-34) undertakes he difficult taskof "think-ing like a river." In fisheries research,the actions of scallops are explainedas acrucial element in determining he outcome of certainresearchprojects(Callon1986). Theseworkspointto the notion of naturalagency, in which the actions ofthe biophysical world must be incorporatedinto ecological analysis. Serres(1995) maintainsthatthe reincorporation f naturalagency is a majorchallengefacing contemporaryphilosophy, whereas Gellner (1995:252) argues that thesocial constructionof reality"needsto be complementedby the naturalconstruc-tion of society."Thisproblem s approached ia thesymmetry,orequivalence,postulatedevel-oped by Barnes& Bloor (1982), which has been most fully implemented n thefield of the sociology of knowledge. In a study of technological change, Law(1987:114) arguesthat"to treatnaturalandsocial adversaries nterms of the sameanalyticalvocabulary"allows the researcher"todiscoverthepatternof forces asthese arerevealedin thecollisions thatoccurbetweendifferent ypesof elements,some social andsome otherwise."Vayda& Walters 1999) maintain hatecologi-cal researchshouldnotmakeapriori udgmentsconcerning hecauses of environ-mentalchangebut mustbe willing andable to assess all possible factors,whether

257


7/33

258 LITTLEof biological or social originor,as is usuallythe case, of thecomplexandcontin-gent interactionof both. Latour(1993) has applied the notion of symmetrytoanthropologyas a means of bridgingits two greatdivides, thatof nature/cultureand thatof us/them.In this context of epistemological symmetry,the following question arises:Which discipline is the most indicatedto translatenaturalagency into conceptsfor use in analysis?Yearley(1993) exploresa series of problemsthatarise whenscience is used as a "stand-in ornature." n spite of these difficulties,the naturalsciences remain a primecandidate or this taskbecausethey have been studyingnaturalagencysystematicallyandin greatdetail fora longtime(Murphy1994).Ifone wants to understand he agency of a volcano, questioninga volcanologist isnot a badplace to start,althoughthis need not eliminateseeking out folk knowl-edge, and particularly nformationfrompeople who live in regions of frequentvolcanic activity.Knowledgeof nature hroughartisticexpressionis also reveal-ing-consider Julio Cortazar's(1964) short story of an existential encounterbetween a humanbeing and an axolotl, or Plumwood's (1996) narrationof herepisode as prey for a crocodile-and can be useful in understandingnaturalagency.The select use of different ypesof knowledgecan lead to apostpositivistposition thatretainsempiricist (see Jackson1989) and realist (see Morris 1997)foundations n which natural cientific knowledge plays a leading,butnot exclu-sive, role in representingnaturalagency.Epistemological symmetrymust confront the realist condition of ontologicalasymmetry.The fact that all elements areoperatingwithin a single symmetricalfield does not mean thatthey are operating accordingto the same principlesorthat the power relations between them are symmetrical.The incorporationofnaturalagencyintoecological analysisdoesnotrequire hat hebiophysicalworldbe anthropomorphized.On the contrary,recognizing and incorporating he dis-tinctive type, structure,andpower of naturalagency is one of the key methodo-logical challenges of ecological analysis. Biological and geological processescannot be subsumedunderdiscoursetheory, ust as political and culturalchangecannotbe subsumedunder heconceptof natural election.Furthermore,hemul-tiplicity of social agencies is supplementedby the multiplicityof naturalagen-cies. Everyanimalspecies has its own ontology (Ingold 1992) and othernaturalforces,whetheroceancurrents,blackholes, atoms,orthesun,have theirowntypeand structureof agency.Withinthe context of multiple agencies, hybridsof humanandnaturalagents,whether hey arecyborgs-described succinctlyby Haraway 1992:42) as "com-poundsof the organic,technical,mythic,textualandpolitical"-or quasi-objects(Latour 1993), mustbe includedin ecological analysis andthe respectivestruc-tureof theiragency taken into account.A problememerges,however, when allagentsare understoodas hybrid,becausetheirdistinctivenaturaland social agen-cies are then eliminatedas a result of theirfusion. Rabinow(1992:241-42), forexample, introduces he conceptof biosociality, in which "naturewill be knownand remadethroughtechniqueandwill finally become artificial, ust as culturebecomes natural."McKibben(1989) notes that large partsof naturehave been


8/33

ENVIRONMENTALNTHROPOLOGYmodified or invadedby humanaction, which characterizes he currentepoch asheralding he "endof nature."Yet there aremany thingsin the universe eitherthathave no humanimprintor that have been touchedby humans andyet still retaintheir distinctive naturalagency. One good example of a natural-cultural ybridcould be a solarpanel, but the sun, an essential aspect of the hybrid,is clearly anaturalagentthat has not been modified by humans.Scientific understandingof the ecological dynamics of naturalsystems hasalso undergonechangesbecausethe earlier rends n naturalecology thatempha-sized equilibrium, homeostasis, and stability have, beginning in the 1970s,graduallyshifted towardnew emphases on disturbance,catastrophe,and non-equilibriumdynamics.Rappaport1990:45) cautions,however,that "attention odisorderand disturbance does not preclude attentionto orderand regularity."Regarding the interface of natural and social systems, Holling & Sanderson(1996) postulatea disharmony hat is foundedin the notions of managementandpurpose: Managementoccurs in human societies, particularly n modem ones,where it demonstratesa strong tendencyto maximize a narrowrangeof values,butit is not commonin natural ystems;andpurpose, n which cross-generationalsocial learningoperatesas an important ariable n social systems, is unknown nnaturalsystems. Early on, Bateson (1972) called attention to the dynamicsthatresult fromtheunion of consciouspurpose,which tends to be linear,with the cir-cularityof cyberneticandbiophysical systems.He foundthatthis interactionpro-duces neitherpredictabilitynor randomnessbut rather tochasticprocesseswithinwhich bothrandomandselective forces areoperating Bateson 1979). Recently,the conceptsof autopoiesis, self-organizing systems, andcomplexityhave servedas powerfulorganizingmotifs in researchon stochasticdynamics(Jantsch1980,Prigogine& Stengers1984, Kauffman1991).These developmentshave led to radicalquestioningof the establishednotionsof adaptation(Singer 1996) in the search for ways to effectively bridge thenature/culturedivision. Political and economic processes must be incorporatedintothebiophysical adaptivesituation,notonly toprovidehistoricalspecificitytohuman/environmentnteraction,but also to identify factorsthat"perpetuateun-equal adaptivepotential"(Thomas 1998:64). In such a context,questionsof, forexample,whether the system of slavery implanted n the Americas was efficientas a mechanism for plantationowners adaptingto New World ecosystems, orwhethertheunderclass n contemporary ocieties adapts o hostile urbanenviron-ments of violence, drugabuse, and structuralunemployment,reveal the seriousshortcomingsof a strict adaptationistprogram.The theoreticaland substantiveevaluation of adaptation s at the core of the efforts of biological and culturalanthropologists toward "building a new biocultural synthesis" (Goodman &Leatherman1998).

Global, Regional, and Local Levels of Analysis andArticulationThe delimitationanduse of multiplelevels of analysis,whereeach level demon-strates a degree of internalarticulation,has a uniqueset of agents, and operates

259


9/33

260 LITTLEaccordingto its own dynamic, is providing new insights into the relationshipbetween human groups and their environments. In anthropologicalecologicalresearch,differentkinds of generalizationsare obtained fromdifferent levels ofanalysis (Bennett 1976). In biological terms, the distinction has been madebetween "ecosystempeople,"whose subsistenceis tied to particular ocal-levelecosystems, and "biospherepeople," who draw their supportfrom resourcesobtained at a planetary evel (Dasmann1988).When theplanetis the environmentof analysis,humanity s the populationofstudy for anthropologists.Although such a large and complex environmentinvolves enormousmethodologicalandempiricaldifficulties, it is often the onlyadequate evel of analysisfor suchenvironmentalproblemsas the increase n sizeof the hole in the ozone layer, global warming,and the biophysical and socialimpactsof the El Niiio ocean current.Humanecology researchon global climatechange considers the impacts of this change on regional biocultural systems(Gunn1994) and the humancauses of these changes(Stem et al 1992). Researchon deforestationand subsequentsecondarysuccessional regrowthin Amazoniahas benefited from new techniques that combine planetary-level informationobtainedfrom satellites with local-level knowledge derived from onsite inter-views andobservation Moran& Brondizio1998). Ingeneral,theuse of satellitesand other remote sensing devices, including geographic informationsystemstechnology, provides a host of new possibilities for anthropologicalecologicalresearch,particularlyn the area of land-usepatternsandchanges(Conant1990,Guyer& Lambin1993).Global-levelphenomenahave become increasingly mportantnpoliticalecol-ogy research because of the planetarydimension of many environmentalprob-lems and issues and the recent intensification (Harvey 1989) of long-termprocesses of globalization(Wolf 1982). Altvater(1993) undertakesan energeticanalysisof the world economic system wherebythepillage by multinationalcor-porationsof islands of syntropy-highly orderedgeological areas such as oildeposits, coal mines, or gold veins-as a means of increasingtheirproductionresultsin the global exportof entropy.Durham 1995) developeda model of thepolitical ecology of deforestation of tropicalrainforestsin Latin America thatincludes one positive-feedback loop that correspondsto capital accumulation,which generallyoccurs at nationalandglobal levels, and another hat is linked toimpoverishment,which primarily s a local and regional phenomenon(see alsoRudel & Horowitz 1993, Sponsel et al 1996).Theincreasingrelevance of global-levelphenomena o humangroupschangesthe very meaning of the local. On the one hand, local presence of global phe-nomenaproducesa situationdescribed as "glocality"(Robertson1995). On theotherhand,the manner n which social actorsbehave and conduct local politicschangeswhenglobal influencesarepresent.Infact,not only is the notionof whatis local an issue, the determinationof who is best situatedto representlocalgroupsalso has become an issue, as exemplified in the case of differentAmazo-nian social agents (Ribeiro& Little 1998). O'Connor(1998:299-305) suggeststhattheslogan"thinkglobally,actlocally,"which orientsboththe Greensandthe


10/33

ENVIRONMENTALNTHROPOLOGYleftist social movements,shouldbe supplementedwith the slogan "think ocally,act globally," in orderto foster a viable and effective "international ed greenmovement."The new interestin global-local dynamicsshouldnot obscure the crucialroleplayed by intermediate egionaland national evels of analysisandarticulationnthe intricateprocessesof mediationandlinkageof local andglobal levels. A studyof a regional marketsystem in Western Sudanemploys four different levels ofanalysis in order to capturethe intricacy of the marketplaces, channels, andstrategiesthatcomprisethe system (Reeves 1989). Ribeiro(1994) shows how amajor hydroelectric dam on the Argentine-Paraguayborder fails to promotedevelopmentas a resultof theunequaldistributionof poweranddifferingdegreesof articulationof transnational, ational,regional,and local levels of agency.Theconflicts between locally based (often indigenous)nations and the official stateover control of and access to natural esourcesarethe source of whatClay(1994)refers to as the twentieth-century"resourcewars." These conflicts also highlightthe differingculturalandpolitical bases of distinct levels of articulation.The difficulties in delimitingdistinctlevels and in identifyingthe agentsanddynamicsinternal o each arecompoundedby the need to theorizeabouttherela-tionshipbetween levels and to make it operational.DeWalt & Pelto (1985) pro-vided a good introduction o these issues when they outlined a methodologicalframework or linkingmicro withmacroprocesses in a micro-macronexus (Ben-nett 1985). Under the influence of new developmentsin chaos and complexitytheory,recentwork is positing the metaphorof "fractalness" s a way of ethno-graphicallydetecting the irregular,asymmetricalpower connections that unitesocial actors who operateat different levels of social scale and whose actionsoften produceunpredictableresults (Little 1996). In this regard,Harries-Jones(1998) makesthe additionalpoint thatcross-level political actionsmust be com-bined with the cross-scalardynamicsof naturalsystems.

EnvironmentalHistory andHistoricalEcologyAn explicit concernwith the history of ecological interrelationshas led to thedevelopmentof separate ields of environmentalhistory(see Worster1988b)andhistorical ecology (see Balee 1998), which roughly correspondto the politi-cal/humanecology division outlinedabove,whichhave distincttransdisciplinaryemphases, and which have their respectivejournals of debate:EnvironmentalHistory Review and Historical Ecology. A third term, ecological history, is alsoused to describe this area of research (Cronon 1983, Gadgil & Guha 1992,Radding 1997). All these termsdescribe a type of researchthat is interestedin"deepeningourunderstanding f how humanshavebeen affectedby theirnaturalenvironment hrough ime and,conversely,how they have affected thatenviron-mentandwith whatresults"(Worster1988a:290-91).

Key insights derived from historicalresearchin ecological issues have beenprovidedby a reevaluationof thepast impactof humanbeings on landscapespre-viously consideredas pristineor as landscapesonly minimallymodifiedby pastinhabitants,ncluding specific indigenouspeoples orunknownPaleo inhabitants.

261


11/33

262 LITTLECertainenvironmentspreviouslythoughtof as naturalarenow knownto be arti-factuallandscapesthatwere created,in part,by humansocieties of the past andthatinclude,in the case of Amazonia,agriculturalallows, anthropogenic avan-nas, babassu palm groves, and sporadic,highly fertile sections of soil (Balee1992).Not all suchimpacts,however,have beenbeneficial tohumanpopulations,norhave they necessarilybeen biophysically innocuous.Pyne (1993) providesahistorical review of the widespreaduse of fire as an environmentalmanagementtool in differentcontinentsbeginningfrom the LatePleistocene,with majorcon-sequences for subsequent development of the burned ecosystems. Simmons(1993) documentshow, in numerousregionsof the earth,forestclearance,over-hunting,overfishing,introductionof exotic species intoecosystems,and soil ero-sion fromagriculturehave all been the result of millenaryhuman activities thathavemodified thebiophysicalenvironmentn innumerableways. Recent archeo-logical and historicaldebatesconcerning he role of deforestationnthe eclipse ofthe Late ClassicMayanCopanstate(Abramset al 1996), environmentaldegrada-tion withinthe RomanEmpire(Hughes 1994), andthe deforestationand soil ero-sion causedby earlyinhabitants f EasterIsland(Bahn&Flenley 1992)representstill other results of this type of research.Islands provide a biophysical laboratoryfor historical human ecology andarcheological research to the extent that they contain microcosmic historiesof natural millennial processes and provide clear geographic and social-scaleparametersfor understanding hese histories (Kirch 1997). With the study ofislands of differentsizes (see Dewar 1997), new possibilities are emerging fordeveloping long-termmodels of the changesinbiophysicalenvironmentsandthedifferential impacts of humans on those environments over thousands ofyears-models thatcan contribute o the creation of planetary-levelmodels.Ecological researchersmust confrontenormousmethodologicaldifficulties ifthey are to understand he historicalconjunctionof geological, biological, andculturaltemporalities,which have temporalscales that range from billions ofyears in the first case, to millions in the second, and thousands in the third.For example, the dynamicsof frontierexpansionin EcuadorianAmazonia thatinvolve oil development,colonization, deforestation,and conservationactivitiesinclude at once the geological time frame of the formationof undergroundoildeposits,thebiological time frame of the establishmentof world-record evels ofplantandanimaldiversity,andthe cultural ime frame of developmentalist ron-tierexpansion,and have generated uchresponsesas thedepletionof oil deposits,reductionof biological diversity,andsocial stratification Little 1992).The notion of imperialism,whetherof the ecological (Crosby 1986) or Green(Grove 1995) variety, has been used to describe the biophysical dimension ofEuropeanexpansion.Based on a detailed chronicleof thebiological expansionofEurope hroughoutheglobe over a thousand-year eriod(AD900-1900), Crosby(1986) arguesthatbiogeographicalfactors were crucialto the success of Euro-pean imperialism,particularly egarding he introductionandever-expandinguseof Old Worldplants and animals in the Americas and Australia.Grove (1995:486), in a detailed history of the territorialexpansion of European powers


12/33

ENVIRONMENTALNTHROPOLOGYbetween 1600 and 1860 and the scientific studyof the impactsof thatexpansionon tropical islands, documents how modem environmentalism"emergedas adirect response to the destructivesocial and ecological conditions of colonialrule."

Territory,Place,and LandscapeThe concepts of territory,place, and landscapehave served to reintroducegeo-graphicalspaceas a significantfactor n ecological research.Workwith foragers,fishers,pastoralists,andperipateticshas demonstratedhow humanterritorialityhas many motivations and is contingent upon different sets of circumstances(Casimir& Rao 1992). Malkki (1992:24) shows this in her work with refugeesandexiles in Burundiand Tanzaniaand notes that"peoplearechronicallymobileandroutinely displaced,and invent homes and homelands n the absenceof terri-torial,nationalbases." Almeida(1994) refers to a "warof themaps" n drawingasociopoliticalmapof the Carajas egionof BrazilianAmazoniain which the eth-nographic informationprovided by marginalized populations is incorporateddirectlyinto the map, therebyrevealingthe overlappingand contested claims ofall the residents of this region. These and other works on humanterritorialitymove away from past ethological analogies and environmental deterministicapproachesby developing ecological analysesthatview all peoples, regardlessofsocietal scale or ecosystemic constraints,as having the potential for territorialbehavior.The notion of place has also emergedas a means of situatingpeoples in con-temporarysocial and environmental conflicts. Dirlik (1998) argues that placeconsciousness has strongpolitical dimensions not only forthe critiqueof univer-salist pretensionsof developmentbut also as a means of directlyconfronting heoperationsof globalpower.Similarly,Rodman 1992:640) sees place as a "politi-cized social and culturalconstruct"andAppadurai 1996) refers to theprocessesof the "production f locality."Tuan(1996) shifts attention rom thepsychologi-cal and social foundationsof local places to thenotionof "cosmos"as the cosmo-politanside of culturethat offers a potential liberatingcounterparto the dangersof provincialismandbigotryoften foundin the "hearth."Landscapes-defined by Crumley (1994:6) as "the materialmanifestationofthe relationbetweenhumansandthe environment"-representanothermeans ofintroducinggeographicalspace into anthropologicalanalysis, where it can serveas a "laboratory f past humanchoice andresponsein which the effects of envi-ronmentalchangecan be palpablyunderstood"Crumley1994:7).An ecologicalunderstanding f landscapes nvolves analysisof theknowledge systems, produc-tive practices, and religious rites that local peoples have developed over thecourse of centuriesas a means of interactingwith and gaining sustenance fromtheirbiophysicalenvironments.

The spiritualrelationshipof Native Americanpeoples in the United States tosacredcenters at specific geographicsites unites religion and spatiality(Deloria1994). With religious landscapescoming to the fore throughout he world, thenew andexpandingfield of spiritualecology bringsinto the ecological realm the

263


13/33

264 LITTLEthemes of sacrednessandspirituality Kinsley 1995, Gottlieb 1996), themes thatare being explored in a new journal, Worldviews. Environment, Culture, Relig-ion, foundedin 1997. An aestheticrelationshipwith the landscape s also impor-tant and is exemplified by the Temiarpeoples of the Malaysianrainforestwhoinscribein theirsongs crucial formsof knowledgeof theirlandscape n a mannerthat serves to "mapand mediate theirrelationshipswith the land and each other"(Roseman 1998:111).Ethnoscientificresearchhas expandedremarkablyover the pasttwo decades,andethnospecialitieshave developedin botany,zoology, entomology, ichthyol-ogy, agronomy,andpharmacology.Perhapsethnobotanical esearchhas experi-enced the fastest growth and internationalorganization(see Posey & Overal1990) and has attaineda high degreeof sophistication.One exampleis providedby Balee (1994) in a treatisethatcombines an extensive botanicaldescriptionoflocal plantswith a detailedanalysisof the complex systemof plantuse and activ-ity and forestmanagementof the Ka'aporof Brazilian Amazonia. In the area ofdevelopment,Ploeg (1993) shows how a precise knowledge of specific plots ofland is crucialin the cultivationof potatoesfor local farmers n theAndeanhigh-lands. Redford& Padoch(1992) documenthow bothindigenousand folk knowl-edge andpracticesoffer models of sustainableresourceuse in neotropical orests.The use of indigenousand other local knowledge systemshas, for academiaanddevelopment, importantdimensions that involve the difficult process of bro-kering between local and Westernscientific knowledge systems as a means offindinginnovative,location-specificsolutionsto new developmentandenviron-mentalproblemsfacing the worldtoday(Sillitoe 1998).

THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTALISMThe many environmentalproblemsthat have emergedfrom the multiplicityofinterrelationsbetween humansand their environmentshave been accompaniedby a concomitantsurgein environmentalisms, ach with theirrespectiveenviron-mentalists.Theethnographicanalysisof andpolitical involvementin these manyenvironmentalismson the partof anthropologistsand othersocial scientistshavegenerated,during hepasttwo decades,a field of study n its ownright.Inthissec-tion, the pertinent iterature s analyzed in terms of environmentalmovements,rights,territories,and discourses.

Environmental MovementsThe study of social movementswith environmentalconcernshas expandedthenotion of environmentalism n anthropology o includenot only explicitly envi-ronmentalist nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs) in the northernhemi-sphere,but also a large numberof movements in the industrializingnations ofpoorormarginalizedpeoplesthatarestrugglingwith suchenvironmentallybasedissues as control over and access to naturalresources, encroachmenton their


14/33

ENVIRONMENTALNTHROPOLOGY

lands and livelihood, andprotests against environmentallydestructivedevelop-ment projects. The concept of the environmentalismof the poor developed byMartinez-Alier(1991) has been applied to India by Guha (1997:19-20), whomentionssituations hathave"pittedrichagainstpoor:logging companiesagainsthill villagers, dam builders against forest tribals, multinationalcorporationsdeploying trawlersagainstartisanal isherfolkrowing country-boats."Meanwhile,women's environmentalmovementstendto arisewhen genderisa determiningfactor in issues involving the division of labor,access to naturalresources, and propertyrelations in ways that are disadvantageousto women(Carney1996). In efforts to maintainexisting rightsor to resistnew policies thatseek to extinguishthem, the emergenceof women's resistance movementsthataredirectlyrelatedto environmental ssues has generated he new fields of femi-nist political ecology (Rocheleau et al 1996) and ecofeminism (Towsend 1995,Merchant1996).One widely known environmentalmovement that combines the issues of thepoor with those of genderis the Chipkomovementof the IndianHimalayasthatemerged in the 1970s. In a social history of the movement (Guha 1989), it isexplainedas one aspect of a long historyof social protestin the region, particu-larly in regardto the resistanceagainst forest management.The authorempha-sizes how this movement was able to unite private peasantconcernswith publicecological ones. In a continuationof this history, Rangan (1996) describes howthe Uttaranchal statehood movement has in many ways eclipsed the Chipkomovementas themost powerfulmovement of protestin theregion, although t isfar less environmentalistn characterandin factpromotesa strongdevelopmen-talist agenda.The rubber-tappersof Brazilian Amazonia gained worldwide attentionthroughtheirpolitical strategiesthatcombined local directaction with interna-tionalenvironmental ampaigns(Hecht& Cockbur 1989). Theirconfrontationswith loggers and ranchers n the 1970s as partof their effortto protectthe forestand theirhomelandsrapidlyevolved duringthe 1980s underthe inspiredleader-ship of Chico Mendes (1989). Rubber-tappers rganizedat a nationallevel andsimultaneously orgeda strategicalliancewith the international nvironmentalistmovement when global environmentalconcern over deforestationwas at itsheight. As a result,the supportprovidedfor the rubber-tappers nion continuedeven afterthe assassinationof Mendes,carriedoutby ranchers n 1988. The sub-sequentcreation of several extractive reserves-an innovative,comanaged pro-tected area under the rules of common property-gave the rubber-tappers ndotherextractivistpeoples new legal supportandspawnednew forms of associa-tionism (Allegretti 1994).Local peoples do not only form structuredsocial movements in defense oftheir interests,they also rely on a host of everyday forms of resistancein whatScott (1985) classifies as the "weaponsof the weak." In a historicalaccount ofcontrol of the forest in Java, Peluso (1992) analyzes the many confrontationsbetween the "culturesof control"of state forestry agencies and the "culturesofresistance"of forest-basedpeasantgroupsthathave been involved for centuries

265


15/33

266 LITTLE

in strugglesfor the controlof land,trees, forestlabor,andideology. In still othercases, local, everydayresistance o theconstructionof hydroelectricdams has ledto the establishment of national"impactedpeoples" movements both in Brazil(Magalhaes1990) andin India(WF Fisher 1995).Parajuli 1998:17) categorizesthesemanygroupsunder he rubricof"ecologi-cal ethnicities,"which he uses inreference o "thosepeoplewho havedevelopedarespectfuluse of the natural esourcesandconsequentlya commitment o creatingandpreservinga technologythatinteractswith local ecosystems in a sustainablemanner,"and that can include "peasants, ndigenous peoples, ruralinhabitants,fisherfolk,forestdwellers,nomadicshepherds,and a host of people marginalizedby development projects and the programsof environmentalmodernization."What is particularlynoteworthyabout these ethnicities is that they representviable, functioning,ecological alternatives o existing models of modernizationandenvironmentaldestruction.Within the FirstWorld countries,particularly he United States,movementsfor environmentalustice have emerged amongthepoorandpeople of color.Har-vey (1996:368) pinpointsone of the socio-environmental ourcesof these move-ments when he notes that"oneof thebestpredictorsof the location of toxic wastedumps in the United States is a geographicalconcentrationof people of low-income and color." Bullard (1993:24) diagnoses the phenomenaof "environ-mental racism" n the United States andchronicles the effortsof grassrootsAfri-can American,Latino,Asian, Pacific Islander,and Native Americangroupsto"organize themselves around waste-facility siting, lead contamination,pesti-cides, water andairpollution,Native self-government,nuclear esting,and work-place safety."Martinez-Alier 1997) places these movementsin an internationalcontextby describing heunequal"ecologicaldistributionof conflicts"involvingthe actions of multinationaloil, mining,andagrobusinesscompaniesthat interna-tionalize their toxic wastes and environmentaldestruction.Johnston(1994:229)summarizes he basic thrustof these variedmovements: "Socialjustice environ-mentalism,with its emphasison humanrightsandwrongs,calls for a reorderingof prioritiesin decision-making systems, and for restructuringhe balance andloci of power in the decision-makingprocess."Ethnographic ndsociological analysesof environmental rganizationswithina national contextexist in bothFirst and ThirdWorldcountries,as evidencedbyanalyses of movements in Brazil (Leis & Viola 1996), Canada(Harries-Jones1993), India (Agarwal 1994), Ireland(Peace 1993), the United States (Snow1992), andVenezuela(Garcia1992). On a global level, the"Amazonia or Life!"campaigncoordinatedby the Ecuadorian nvironmentalNGO Accion Ecologica(1994) has madepetroleumdevelopmentin tropicalforeststhe focus of an inter-nationalcampaign hathas facilitatedSouth-SouthnterchangesbetweenactivistsfromNigeria, Indonesia,Malaysia, Peru,Colombia,and Ecuador.Keck & Sik-kink (1998:147) explore the ways that different"environmentaladvocacy net-works,"whose power resides in their "abilityto generateand use informationstrategically,"have been crucial factors in mobilizing andmaintaining nterna-tional campaignsagainst tropicaldeforestation n Brazil and Sarawak.McCor-


16/33


mick (1989) provides a good historical overview of the emergence andconsolidationof a global environmentalpolitical space structuredaround nter-governmentalorganizationssuch as the United Nations and internationalenvi-ronmentalistNGOs.EnvironmentalRights

The complex domain of environmentalrights refers to those cases where theclaims andrightsof peoples to territories,naturalresources,knowledge systems,and even their bodies are being ignored or abused(Miller 1993). The rights ofindigenous, or "firstpeoples" (Burger 1990), to the lands and naturalresourcesthey have historically occupied and continue to use have been a central focus ofanthropologistsworkingwith these groups(ChirifTiradoet al 1991). The territo-rialrightsof thesepeoples are now beinganalyzedfromthevantagepointof theirhistoricalpatternsof and futurepotentialfor the environmentalprotectionof theirrespective lands (Cardenaset al 1992, Schwartzman& Santilli 1999). On anexplicitly political level, the rightsof indigenouspeoples to their territoriesarealso analyzedwithregard o theconceptsof sovereignty(Goldtooth1995),auton-omy (Bartolome 1995), and self-determination Hannum1996).Anthropologicalresearchonpropertyrightshasethnographicallydocumentednumerouscases of existing commonpropertyregimes located in all partsof theplanetthatinvolve a wide varietyof naturalresources(McCay& Acheson 1987,Bromley 1992). In refinements of common property heory,Guillet (1992) ana-lyzes autonomousAndean "irrigationclusters"that harborboth pre-Columbianorigins and modem innovations andthat remain a buildingblock of Andeanirri-gation organization;Johha(1994) describeshow commonpropertyregimes ful-fill crucial roles in the daily subsistence activities of poorpeasantsin India;andBerkes (1996) emphasizesthe importanceof local institutions and theirrole inmaintaining eedbackloops betweennaturalresources and the commonpropertyregime. Meanwhile, Park (1993) offers a critiqueof common propertytheorywithin the perspectiveof arid,high-risklandsby noting that,althoughcommonpropertycan function as a long-term,collective means of coping with high-riskenvironments, uchsituationscan often be basedin stratified,authoritarian ocialsystems rather hanin a communityof equals.The rights to environmentalknowledge developed and used by indigenouspeoples and rural armershave become a highly contested issue as a result of thegrowth of multinationalbiotechnology firms and their search for scientificallyunknown,highly valuable plants, which has taken them to remotepartsof theglobe andplacedthemin contactwith thelocal people (Peritore& Galve-Peritore1995). Oneresponse by local groupshasbeen to issue calls forpaymentof royal-ties for use of theirknowledge, and a more anthropologicalone has called intoquestionthe clash of cosmovisions whereby"wester legal conceptsof 'origina-lity' and 'innovation'embedded n intellectualproperty aw arenot only sharplyatodds with theirindigenouscounterparts, ut areprimedto servethe interestsofbiocolonialism"(Whitt 1998:34).

267


17/33

268 LITTLEDavis (1993:21) presentsan anthropological ritiqueof the currentdiscussiononbiodiversityprospectingand intellectualpropertyrightsby arguing hat it fails

to comprehend he "sacredor spiritualqualityof indigenous plant knowledge,"and Orlove & Brush(1996) reviewthevaryingways that ocalpeoples can and doparticipate directly in the conservation of biodiversityresources. Cleveland &Murray(1997:510) show that indigenous peoples have widely varying, auto-chthonousconceptsof intellectualproperty hatdivergefromthe Western ndus-trial model and conclude that a broadly conceived notion of sustainableagriculture s needed, one that serves the goals of "promotingboth livelihoodsecurityfor farmersat the local level and the world's food security."Thepatentingof geneticmaterialcollectedon landsbelongingto the localpeo-ple that is subsequentlymodified in the laboratoriesof biotechnology firms hasbeen criticized by both indigenous organizationsand anthropologistsbecausethese firms have refusedtorecognizethat nmanycases this materialharborscen-turies of human selective input,andbecause this material s being privatizedonthe sole basis of theirmanipulation.The indigenousoutcryover the US patentissued for ayahuasca, an Amazonianhallucinogenused rituallyfor centuriesbyindigenous groups, and the controversyover the neem tree in India (Shiva &Holla-Bhar1996) arejust two of a host of cases that have emergedover the pastfew years andserve as a portentof futureconflicts. All of these issues arebeingdebatedat local, national, and international evels, where social scientists areplaying central roles in framingdebates, includingthose over local (EstadodoAcre 1997) and national(Silva 1996)biopiracy aws, the codificationof the Con-vention of Biological Diversity ratified at the 1992 Rio EarthSummit(Posey &Dutfield 1996), and the implementationof the Trade-RelatedAspects of Intellec-tualPropertyRights agreementsof theUruguayRoundof theGeneralAgreementon Tariffsand Trade(Grenier1998).The issue of the rights to one's body has centered on the Human GenomeDiversity Project(Weiss 1998:295-98) andhas createddivisions amonganthro-pologists. On one side arethosebiological anthropologistswho were involved indrawing up the initial list of 722 indigenous populationsfromaroundthe worldfor use as subjects ngeneticstudies,and onthe othersidearethose social andcul-turalanthropologists,manyof whomhavedevelopedstrongcritiquesof colonial-ism, and who arguethat the projectconsiders its subjectsto be "muchlike the19th-centuryanthropological primitive',who, envisionedas vestiges of an ear-lier moment in humanhistory, representeda mirroron the past"(Cunningham1998:212-13). The defense of the rightsto one's body also questionsthepatent-ing of discretehumanorgans,tissues, cells, andgenes and criticizesthe lucrativeglobal market n body parts(Kimbrell1996).

Environmental TerritoriesThe numerousnationalparks,biological reserves, wilderness areas, and otherprotectedareasthat have been establishedby governments hroughout heworld,along with a host of UN-designatedBiosphereReserves,have theiroriginin thewilderness preservationcurrentof the environmentalistmovement. Protected


18/33


areas encompass specific geographic spaces, have designated social purposes,and are managedby political institutions,which makes them both naturalandhumanterritories Little 1996). Onepromisingline of research s the documenta-tion of the humanprocesses behindthe establishmentof protectedareasandthedescription of the environmentalphilosophies or cosmologies that undergirdthem. Foresta(1991) offers a detailedreadingof the varied social actors-localenvironmentalists, he military government,internationalNGOs, naturalscien-tists-who were involved in theprocessof establishingprotectedareasin Brazil-ian Amazoniaduringthe 1970s and 1980s and shows how they were influencedby thereigningscientific theoriesof conservationof thetime,mostnotablyby thePleistocene Refuge Theory, the Island Biogeography Theory, and Phytogeo-graphicMapping.BarrettoFilho (1997) extends thisresearch n anexplicitlyethnographicdirec-tion througha comparativestudyof theprocessesof analysis,proposal,creation,andmanagementof two BrazilianAmazonianprotectedareas,with theadditionalfactor that they are inhabitedby traditionalriverinepopulations.Cases such astheseraisetheeven broader opicof parksandpeople, involvingthemultiplecon-flicts andissues thatemanate romthose siteswheretraditionaland/or ndigenouspeoples have long utilized naturalresources,but which have since come to beclassified as protected.These debatesaredirectlytied to the increasingvisibilityand power of social movements that are defending their environmentalandhumanrightsand, in spite of the generalizedconciliatorytone of the parksandpeople literature,wo basicperspectives-a conservationistone and anindigenistone-are still clearly evident.In a broad-based heoreticalattemptby conservationists o get a handleon thisissue (West & Brechin 1991), the topics of displacement,ecodevelopment,andplanningare exploredwithin the frameworkof the concept of residentpeoples,which defines highly diverse societies in relationto theirpresence in protectedareas that are taken for grantedas an existing good. Amend & Amend (1992)documentthat86% of thenationalparks n SouthAmericaareinhabitedorregu-larlyused by local peoples andproposethe establishmentof environmentaledu-cation and consciousness-raising programs for these inhabitants. Integratedconservationanddevelopmentprojectsarealso being implemented n numerouscountries,butthey operateunderthe principlethat"oncebiological criteriahavebeen takeninto account,then social andpolitical criteriashould be considered"(Brown & Wyckoff-Baird1992:12). The "Parks n Peril"program aunchedbythe NatureConservancy n 1990 (Brandonet al 1998) also seeks rapprochementwith local peoples, although t does not questiontheunderlyingphilosophiesandactualpracticesthat ed to establishmentof protectedareason lands wherepeoplehave lived for long periodsof time.Neumann(1998:9) rejectsmanyof theseconservationistassumptionsby argu-ing not only that national parks are "active sociopolitical forces in their ownright"but also thatthey are"historically mplicatedin the conditions of povertyandunderdevelopmenthatsurroundhem."Gray (1991) expressesconcern overhow conservationpolicies involve the potential for majorviolations of indige-

269


19/33

270 LITTLEnouspeoples' humanrightsandoutlinesthedangersof thesubordinatencorpora-tion of indigenous peoples in the market, he theft andcommodificationof theirknowledge, the social engineeringgearedto make themuseful to external inter-ests, and their controlled assimilation.Diegues (1996), based on extensive workwith traditional aipira populationsof the BrazilianAtlanticforest,criticizes theimpositionin LatinAmerica of whathe calls theYellowstone model of protectedareas andarguesthatecosystems are best protectedwhen the traditionalpeopleswho have managedthemin a sustainablemanner or generationsare left in placeandgrantedcommunaltitle to these lands.Inanattempt o orient hesedebates,McNeeley (1993:253) offers a set of prin-ciples that"couldhelp demonstrate hat integratingconservationwith develop-ment of local humancommunities s bothrelatively painlessandlikely to leadtoenhancedbenefitsto the community,the nation,andtheworld."One of the mostambitiouseffortsin thisrespectwas the internationalPucallpa(Peru)Conferenceheld in 1997, which broughttogether indigenousleaders and conservationists nan effort to assess the state of thequestionanddevelop joint futurework(Grayetal 1998). Ecotourismhas also emergedas a possible meansof promotingconser-vationand at the same time of offeringlocal peoples a sourceof income throughactivities that place economic value on their local skills and knowledge (Boo1992). Suchendeavors,althoughappearinggood onpaper,run ntoahost of prac-ticalproblems,be theyculturalones around hedeploymentofneoprimitivistide-ologies (MacCannell1992) or economic ones, such as the emergenceof internalsocial stratification n previouslynonstratifiedsocieties as a resultof the profitsgained from tourist services controlledby one clan at the expense of rival clans(Little 1992:121-141).

EnvironmentalDiscoursesTheethnographicdescriptionandanalysisof themultipleways thathumansocie-ties conceptualize heirrelationship o theirhumanandbiophysicalenvironmentshas served to relativize the Westernconceptsof natureand culture.Bird-David(1993), in a comparativeanalysisof tribal societies fromAustralia,Africa,Asia,and North America, describes different forms of "metaphorization f human-nature relatedness" hat include such metaphorsas sexual intercourse,procrea-tion, andnamesakeand adult-childrelatedness.Variousanalysesof ethnographicmaterial rom Amerindian ocieties in Amazoniaarecalling for a reevaluationofanimism as a contemporarymeans of understandinghuman-naturerelations(Descola 1998). Arhem (1996:200-1) describes Makuna eco-cosmology, inwhich "animal 'others' are treatedas 'equals' and 'persons,' partiesto a moralpact governingrelationswithin humansociety as well as thegrander ociety of allbeings."All of these examplesdivergefrom the Westernobject-subjectrelation-ship to pose distinct types of subject-subjectrelationshipsbetween natureandhumanity.The cross-culturalstudy of discourses of human-environmentalela-tions has breda host of theoreticalpropositionscalling forthe developmentof agrammarDescola 1992), a cognitive geometry(Ellen 1996), or a meta-language(Hviding 1996) to be used in comparativeepistemology.


20/33


Analyses of Western discourses on the naturalenvironmenthave focused onsuch core conceptsas nature Evernden1992, Cronon1995),wilderness(Oelsch-laeger 1991), ecology (Bramwell 1989), and environmentalism(Milton 1993,Pepper 1996). Other studies explore marginal and/or counterhegemonicdis-coursesthat areemerging nthe West. Ecofeministthoughtoffersways of critiqu-ing the dominant Western mode of understandingthe human/environmentrelationshipand has developed differing essentialist (Shiva 1989) and political(Agarwal 1992) currents.Merchant's(1992) review of radicalecology includesanalyses of deep, spiritual,and social variants n ecology. Experimentalnature-writing is also emerging as a force for reconceptualizingand resensitizingtherelationshipbetween natureandculture,with the magazine TerraNova. Natureand Culture,foundedin 1996, as a locus of such writing.The ideological critiqueof sustainabledevelopment(Redclift 1987) has sev-eralanthropological hrusts:Ribeiro(1991:83) views it as a "metanarrative ithutopiancharacteristics hat establishes a common discursivefield, creatingpossi-bilities for alliances between environmentalists nd those social agentsinterestedin economic growth";Escobar (1995:196) argues that the term representsan"inscriptionof the economic onto the ecological"thathas the effect of affirmingandcontributing o "thespreadof the dominanteconomicworldview";andLittle(1995:268) shows thepotential his termhas for theconstructionof anew interna-tional political cosmology, but describes how, at the EarthSummit in Rio deJaneiro, t waspartof a "globalmagicact, inwhich the leadersof theworld solvedtheir problems throughthe invocation of discursive catchwords."Researchersworking at the grassrootslevel who are documentingthe sustainableways thatlocal groupshave of interactingwith local ecosystemshavebegunto promote heterms sustainablelifeways (Taylor 1995) and livelihoods (Fox 1996, Amalric1998).Thediscursiveappropriation f indigenouspeoples as natural onservationistsandtropicalforests aspristinehabitatsby northern nvironmentalmovements hascreatedan arenaof heatedanthropologicaldebate(see Headland1997). Redford(1990:27) critiquesthe notion of the "ecologicallynoble savage"andarguesthatas indigenous peoples enter intocontactwith the Westernworld,theyreveal"thesame capacities,desires, andperhaps,needs to overexploittheir environmentasdid our Europeanancestors"(for a modified position see Redford & Mansour1996). Edgerton (1992) also "challenges the myth of primitive harmony"bydocumentinga host of"sick societies" that have made maladaptivedecisions inthepastand thenmaintained hem,sometimesdrivingthemselvesinto extinction.Sponsel (1995:283) rebutsthis position with the forcefulargument hat "formil-lennia,these [Amazonian ndigenous]people have developedthe land,generallyin ways thatusedland and resourceson a sustainedbasis withoutmajor, rreversi-ble environmentaldegradationand destruction."Bodley (1997:612) takes upwhat can perhapsbe takenas an intermediateposition and affirms that "when agrouphas no politically or commerciallydrivencultural ncentive for expandingits population,production,andconsumption, ts membersdo not need to be self-conscious conservationists."

271


21/33

272 LITTLE

Regardingthe discursiveappropriation f the Amazonianrainforestby envi-ronmentalists,Fisher(1996:196) chroniclestheway the perceptionof Amazoniaas wilderness was consolidated in the twentieth century with the effect that"indigenouspeoples disappearfrom the social history of the area and from thepolicy recommendationsof local administrators nly to be later resurrectedaspartof the naturalattributesof the wildernessregion."Nugent (1993) makes asimilar argumentregardingAmazonia's caboclo population, which for yearswere"invisible" n Amazoniananthropological esearchand even today,with thenew interest n environmentalssues, are still notrecognizedas a historically spe-cific peasantry hatwas forgedfrom the economic forces of Amazonian colonialhistorybut ratherarerecognizedas examples of sustainabledevelopment.Amt(1992) describeshow anaturalistallegoryforunderstandingAmazonia was akeyelementinthedevelopmentof Brazil'snationalist deology andhow this ideologywas thenmade a pretextfor the rapaciousexploitationof this region in the nameof nationaldevelopment.The flip side of these analyses concerns the ethnographic presentation ofhow Amazonian indigenous peoples are respondingto their appropriationbyenvironmentalists. Conklin & Graham(1995:696-97) postulate the existenceof a "middle groundof Amazonianeco-politics" involving indigenouspeoplesandenvironmentalistsas a "politicalspace, andarenaof intercultural ommuni-cation,exchange,and oint political action."They also highlightthat "there s aninherentasymmetryat the core of the eco-Indian alliance." Albert (1993:368)analyzesthe way the contemporarypolitical indigenousdiscourse of Yanomamishamanandpolitical leaderDavi KopenawaYanomami nvolves both the selec-tive incorporationof elements of the external environmentaldiscourse and thereelaborationof Yanomamicosmology, such that from the "indigenouspoint ofview, thepolitical interculturality f ecological discoursecannotbe maintained."Regarding he Kayap6,both Turner 1991) and Fisher(1994) downplaythe roleof environmentalismand insteadplace ethnographicemphasison the resilience,flexibility, and creative use of Kayap6 internalsocial structuresand politicalstrategies.

All these critiquesare linked to the even broader ssue of how environmentaldiscoursesare constructedata global level andpointto the difficult cross-culturalissue of developing a global discoursethatis sharedrather hanimposed. Shiva(1993:150) takes the latterpositionandarguesthat "theglobal does notrepresenttheuniversalhuman nterest, t representsaparticularocal andparochial nterestthat has been globalized through the scope of its reach." Milton (1996:218)explores the possibilities of a sharedposition by showing how global environ-mentalistdiscourse"encompassesa numberof transcultural erspectiveswhichboth compete and overlap with one another"and outlines a specific role foranthropologists n the studyof global discourses.Yearley (1994:167) postulatesthat environmentalismhasatypeof global specificitybasedin thethreefactorsof"its intimaterelationship o science, itspracticalclaims to internationalolidarity,and its abilityto offer a concertedcritiqueof, andalternative o, capitalist ndus-trialism."


22/33


PROSPECTUS: FACING A NEW MILLENNIUMAlthough admittedlymuch of the hoopla over the coming of the ThirdMillen-nium is both arbitrary ndethnocentric-arbitrarybecause it reflects a particularfetish with roundnumbers,andethnocentricbecause it places all humanhistorywithin a Western,Christiancalendar-it nonetheless can be used for thepurposeof pausing and reflecting on recent dramaticchanges in human/environmentinterrelationsand,fromthatvantage point, takinga prospectivelook atemergingmethodological,political,andethical issues thatwill dominate hecoming years.A centraltheme in this review has been that the concept of the environmentprovides a powerful tool with which to understand ome of the complexities oflife on earthand the role playedby humans as an integralpartof those complexi-ties. One of the most salientaspectsof new technology is its power to transformexisting environmentsandgeneratenew ones. As new environmentsemergeandgrow in importance,new types of ecological analyses will be needed to under-stand the interrelations hat humangroupsmaintainwith them. Four such envi-ronments-urban, virtual, viral, and warfare-are briefly mentioned asharbingersof the future.Theacceleratedurbanization f theearth'shumanpopulationduring he twen-tiethcenturyhas turnedurbanism nto a global ecological issue and transformedthe immediateenvironmentsof an increasingnumberof humans nto urbanones.Some important esearch ssues that these environmentspose are:urbanenviron-mental history, urbanlandscapes,urbanecology and health, urban sustainabledevelopment,and urbanenvironmentalrights.Virtualenvironments,most nota-bly themuch-hypedandlittle-understood yberspace,arechangingtheways thathumans construct dentities,organizethemselves, conductpolitics, andrelate tothebiophysicalenvironment.Researchon the interrelations etween humansandtheirvirtualenvironments nvolves aninterdisciplinary ialogueamongthe infor-mational,psychological, andanthropologicalsciences, where the very means ofstudying these interrelationscan involve extensive use of cyber researchtech-niques.

The speed with which bacteria, viruses, and diseases move across the globetoday requiresthat anthropologicalecological research focus on viral environ-ments and themultiple types of human nterrelations hat serve to channel,propa-gate, deflect, and/or disrupt the transmission of these microorganisms. Thealreadyvoluminous literature nAIDS is being supplementedby researchon epi-demiologicalhistory,demographyanddisease, and the new, uncharted errainofthe cross-transmissionof viruses between humans and nonhumananimals, suchas therecentcases of Britishmadcow scareand theHong Kongchickenslaughtershow. Meanwhile,the protractedwars in the Balkans,CentralAfrica, the Cauca-sus, the MiddleEast,Colombia,Afghanistan,Angola, Guatemala,andnumerousother sites makewarfareenvironmentsa tragic,but essential, areaof research nwhich the conjunctureof militarytechnologies, topography,global geopolitics,ethnic loyalties, local resourcestruggles,andenvironmentaldegradationmust beunderstood n theirdynamicinterrelation.

273


23/33

274 LITTLEThe establishmentof new environmentsand the problemsthat emerge fromthem, invariablybreednew environmentalisms hat can, and are, being studied

ethnographicallynwhat is calledin thisreviewtheanthropologyof environmen-talism. Thisresearchhashighlighted he growingrole and size of the civil societyoperatingat all levels of social scale. As anthropologistsstudy environmentalmovements, they simultaneouslybecome witness to the serious environmentalproblemsfacing local peoples, often as the result of powerfuloutside interests,and become involved in the issues of humanandenvironmental ights.The combination of ecological and ethnographicapproaches o the environ-mentprovidesan expandedanthropological esearchfield thatoffers new possi-bilities for uniting empirical research with the political and environmentalprojectsof humangroupsthatare facing pressing, often life-threatening,prob-lems. This representsone of the broadestand most innovativedevelopmentsinenvironmentalresearchin anthropologyand broaches many of the issues thatSponsel (1995) raises with regards o indigenouspeoples in his call for an (exter-nal) "paradigm hift" in ecological anthropologythat incorporatesnew trends,priorities,andaudiencesfrom bothappliedandadvocacyanthropology,acall thatcomplementsthe (internal)paradigmatic ransformationsmentioned earlier.These transformationsn the ecological paradigmarerespondingto serious,worldwide social and environmentalproblems that are operatingwithin whatBeck (1992) calls the risksociety, which is basedin the distributionof"bads,"ordangers,as opposedto the industrial ociety, which is basedin the distributionofgoods. He adds that the creation of these risks increasinglyeludes the controlbyprotective institutionsof industrialsociety. Murphy(1994:250), in noting thatmany past societies have been risk societies, specifies the peculiarityof the cur-renthistoricalmoment as lying inthefactthattoday'shumanactions"imperil ifeon the planet"and "havepotentially global effects on ecosystems."This is alsothe pointmadeby Serres(1995:20) in notingthathumanity'snew technologicaland scientificpowershavereachedsuchproportions hatour"being-in-the-world[has been] transformednto being as powerful as the world." This provides thebasis for his call fora "natural ontract"betweenhumanityas a new, totalsubjectandplanetearthas global nature.Of course,planetearthmay not be interested n signingon. Fromtheperspec-tive of billions of years of geological andbiological development,humanpres-ence and impact on the earthmay well be insignificant. Lovelock (1988:159)remindsus-working from the premiseof Gaia-that "it is not much comforttoknow that,if we inadvertentlyprecipitatea punctuation, ife will go on in a newstable state.It is nearcertainty hatthe new statewill be less favorable orhumansthanthe one we enjoynow."Nonetheless,therapiddestructionof theworld's bio-diversity(Wilson 1988), a productof nearlyfour billion yearsof evolution,at thecapricious hand of humans, and the destructionof the world's sociodiversity(Neves 1992) as a result of thepolicies of powerful global andnationaleconomicandpolitical agents,representa dramaticandtroublingdevelopmentfor all spe-cies interested n the long-termsurvivalof life on earth.


24/33

ENVIRONMENTALANTHROPOLOGY

Hence, the documentationof the impactsthathumanshave madeandcontinueto make on the planet,impactsthathave reachedan unprecedented cale andarecreatingmajordisturbances n the world's naturalcycles, raises the specterofdriving ourselves, and many other species, into extinction. Kohak (1997:13)cogently summarizes his situation:"Thesurvival of the humanraceand itsmam-mal andvertebratekin on this earthdepends upon ourwillingness to accepttheresponsibilitythat goes with our freedom."Along with responsibility,anotherthemethatcropsup repeatedly n the literature,andthat comes fromresearcherson both sides of the natural/socialscientific divide, is the need to develop a newattitudeof caringfor the earthand its inhabitants,humanandother(Soule 1995,Busch et al 1995, Merchant1996). Caring,andthecollective responsibility hat tentails,offer essential bioethicalguidelinesfor researchand activismas environ-mentalanthropologyenters the twenty-firstcentury.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSI thankLeslie Sponsel, Gustavo Lins Ribeiro,Henyo BarrettoFilho, and mem-bers of theResearchGroupon GlobalTransformations f theUniversityof Brasi-lia for theirmany pertinentand critical comments on previous versions of thisarticle.

Visit the Annual Reviews home page at www.AnnualReviews.org.

LITERATURECITEDAbramsEM, FreterA, Rue DJ, WingardJD.1996. The role of deforestation n collapseof the Late Classic Copan Maya state. SeeSponsel et al 1996, pp. 55-75Acci6n Ecol6gica. 1994.Amazoniapor a Vida.Quito,Ecuador:Acci6n Ecol6gica. 213 pp.Agarwal A. 1994. An Indian environmental-ist's credo. InSocial Ecology, ed. R Guha,pp. 346-84. Delhi: Oxford Univ. PressAgarwal B. 1992. The gender and environ-ment debate: lessons from India. Fem.Stud. 18(1):118-58Albert B. 1993. L'or cannibale et la chute duciel: une critique chamaniquede l'econo-mie politique de la nature (Yanomami,Br6sil).L'Homme33(2-4):349-78Allegretti MH. 1994. Reservas extrativistas:parametrosparaumapolitica de desenvol-vimento sustentavel na Amaz6nia. In O

Destino daFloresta, ed. R Amt, pp. 17-47.Rio de Janeiro:RelumeDumaraAlmeida AWB. 1994. Caraj6s. A GuerradosMapas.Belem, Braz:Falangola.329 pp.Altvater E. 1993. Ilhas de sintropiae expor-tagao de entropia:custos globais do ford-ismo fossilistico. Cad.NAEA11:3-54AmalricF. 1998. Sustainable ivelihoods: en-

trepreneurship, political strategies andgovernance.Development 41(3):31-41Amend S, Amend T. 1992. Habitantes en losparques nacionales ,Una contradici6nin-soluble? InJEspaciossinHabitantes? Par-ques Nacionales de Americadel Sur, ed. SAmend, T Amend, pp. 457-72. Gland,Switzerland:UICNAppaduraiA. 1996. Modernityat Large: Cul-tural Dimensions of Globalization. Min-neapolis:Univ. Minn. Press.229 pp.

275


25/33

276 LITTLE

Arhem K. 1996. The cosmic food web:human-nature elatedness n theNorthwestAmazon. See Descola & Palsson 1996, pp.185-204ArntRA. 1992. Um artificioorganico. In UmArtificio Orgdnico: Transic~o na Ama-zonia e Ambientalismo,ed. RA Art, SSchwartzman,pp. 25-134. Rio de Janeiro:RoccoBahnP, FlenleyJR. 1992.EasterIsland,EarthIsland. London:Thames & HudsonBalee W. 1992. People of the fallow: a histori-cal ecology of foraging in lowland South

America. See Redford& Padoch 1992, pp.35-57Balee W. 1994. Footprints of the Forest.Ka 'apor Ethnobotany-The HistoricalEcology of Plant Utilizationby an Amazo-nian People. New York: Columbia Univ.Press. 396 pp.Balee W. 1998. Advances in Historical Ecol-ogy. New York: ColumbiaUniv. Press.425PP.

Bares B, BloorD. 1982. Relativism,rational-ism andthe sociology of knowledge.InRa-tionalism and Relativism,ed. M Hollis, SLukes, pp. 21-47. Cambridge,MA: MITPressBarrettoFilho HT. 1997. Da nacao ao planetaatraves da natureza. Ser. Antropol. 222:1-32. Brasilia: Univ. BrasiliaBartolomeMA. 1995. Movimientosetnopoli-ticos y autonomias indigenas en Mexico.Am.Indig. 1(2):361-82BatesDG, Lees SH,eds. 1997. CaseStudiesinHumanEcology. New York: Plenum. 407PP.Bateson G. 1972.Stepsto anEcology of Mind.New York:BallantineBateson G. 1979. Mindand Nature:A Neces-sary Unity.New York: Dutton.260 pp.Beck U. 1992. Risk Society: Towardsa NewModernity.London:Sage. 260 pp.Bennett JW. 1976. The Ecological Transi-tion: Cultural Anthropology and HumanAdaptation. New York: Pergamon. 365PP.Bennett JW. 1985. Micro-macronexus:typol-

ogy, process, and system. See DeWalt &Pelto 1985, pp. 23-54Bennett JW. 1993. HumanEcology as HumanBehavior. Essays in Environmental andDevelopment Anthropology. New Bruns-wick, NJ: TransactionBooks. 387 pp.Berkes F. 1996. Social systems, ecologicalsystems, and propertyrights. In Rights toNature,ed. SS Hanna,C Folke, KG Miler,pp. 87-107. Washington,DC: IslandBird-David N. 1993. Tribal metaphorizationof human-naturerelatedness: a compara-tive analysis.See Milton1993,pp. 112-25

BlaikieP, BrookfieldH. 1987.LandDegrada-tion and Society. London: Methuen. 296PP.Bodley JH. 1997. Comments. See Headland1997, pp. 611-13Boo E. 1992. La Explosi6n del Ecoturismo.Planificaci6n para el Manejoy Desarrollo.Washington,DC: WorldWildlife Fund.28PP.Bramwell A. 1989. Ecology in the 20th Cen-tury. A History. New York: Yale Univ.Press. 292 pp.BrandonK, RedfordKH, SandersonSE, eds.1998. Parks in Peril: People, Politics, andProtectedAreas. Washington,DC: Island.519 pp.BromleyDW, ed. 1992. Makingthe CommonsWork:Theory,Practice, and Policy. SanFrancisco:Inst.Contemp.Stud.PressBrown M, Wyckoff-BairdB, eds. 1992. De-signing Integrated Conservationand De-velopment Projects. Washington, DC:World Wildlife Fund. 63 pp.BryantRL, Bailey S. 1997. Third WorldPo-litical Ecology. London: Routledge. 234PP.BullardRD. 1993. Anatomyof environmentalracism and the environmental justicemovement. In ConfrontingEnvironmentalRacism, ed. RD Bullard,pp. 15-39. Bos-ton: SouthEnd

BurgerJ. 1990. The Gaia Atlas of First Peo-ples. A Futurefor the Indigenous World.New York:Anchor. 191 pp.Busch L, Lacy WB, Burkhardt , HemkenD,


26/33


Moraga-RojelJ, et al. 1995. Making Na-ture, Shaping Culture: Plant Biodiversityin Global Context. Lincoln: Univ. Nebr.Press. 265 pp.CallonM. 1986. Some elementsof asociologyof translation:domestication of the scal-lops and the fishermenof St BrieucBay. InPower, Action and Belief, ed. J Law, pp.196-233. London: Routledge & KeganPaul: Soc. Rev. Monogr.32CardenasM, Correa HD, G6mez Bar6n M,eds. 1992. Derechos TerritorialesIndige-nasy Ecologia en las Selvas TropicalesdelAmerica. Bogota, Colombia: Fund. Gaia.385 pp.Carey JA. 1996.Converting hewetlands,en-gendering the environment: the intersec-tion of gender with agrarian change inGambia. See Peet & Watts 1996, pp.165-87CasimirMJ, Rao A, eds. 1992. MobilityandTerritoriality.Social and Spatial Bounda-ries amongForagers, Fishers,PastoralistsandPeripatetics.New York:Berg.412 pp.ChirifTiradoA, GarciaHierroP, Chase SmithR. 1991. El Indigena y su TerritorioSonuno Solo: Estrategias para la Defensa delos Pueblos y TerritoriosIndigenas en laCuencaAmaz6nica. Lima:OXFAM

Clay JW. 1994. Resource wars: nation andstate conflicts of the twentiethcentury.InWhoPays thePrice? ed. BR Johnston,pp.19-30. Washington,DC: IslandClevelandDA, MurraySC. 1997. Theworld'scropgenetic resources andthe rightsof in-digenous farmers.Curr.Anthropol.38(4):477-515Conant FP. 1990. 1990 and beyond: satelliteremote sensing and ecological anthropol-ogy. See Moran1990, pp. 357-88Conklin BA, GrahamLR. 1995. The shiftingmiddle ground: Amazonian Indians andeco-politics. Am. Anthropol. 97(4):695-710CortazarJ. 1964. Axolotl. Final delJuego, pp.149-55. Buenos Aires: Sudamericana.181

PP.Cronon W. 1983. Changes in the Land:Indi-

ans, Colonists, and the Ecology of NewEngland.New York:Hill &Wang.241 pp.CrononW, ed. 1995. UncommonGround:Re-thinkingthe Human Place in Nature.NewYork: Norton. 561 pp.Crosby AW. 1986. Ecological Imperialism.The Biological Expansion of Europe900-1900. New York: Cambridge Univ.Press. 368 pp.CrumleyCL. 1994. Historicalecology: a mul-tidimensional ecological orientation. InHistorical Ecology: Cultural Knowledgeand Changing Landscapes, ed. CL Crum-ley, pp. 1-16. Santa Fe, NM: Sch. Am.Res.CunninghamH. 1998. Colonial encounters npostcolonial contexts: patenting indige-nous DNA and the HumanGenomeDiver-

sity Project.Crit.Anthropol.18(2):205-33Dasmann RF. 1988. National parks, natureconservation, and "Future Primitive." InTribalPeople and DevelopmentIssues: AGlobal Overview, ed. JH Bodley, pp.301-10. MountainView, CA: MayfieldDavis SH. 1993. Hard choices: indigenouseconomic development and intellectualproperty ights.Akwe:kon . Winter:19-25Dean W. 1995. WithBroadax and Firebrand:The Destruction of the Brazilian AtlanticForest. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. 482PP.Deloria V. 1994. God is Red. A Native ViewofReligion. Golden,CO: Fulcrum.313 pp.Descola P. 1992. Societies of natureand thenatureof society. In ConceptualizingSoci-ety, ed. A Kuper, pp. 107-26. London:Routledge. 152 pp.Descola P. 1998. Estruturaou sentimento: arelacao com o animal na Amazonia. Mana4(1):23-45Descola P, Palsson G, eds. 1996. Nature andSociety. London:Routledge. 310 pp.DeWalt BR. 1998. The political ecology ofpopulation increase and malnutrition inSouthern Honduras. See Goodman &Leatherman1998, pp. 295-316DeWalt BR, Pelto P, eds. 1985. Micro andMacroLevels ofAnalysis inAnthropology:

277


27/33

278 LITTLE

Issues in Theoryand Research. Boulder,CO:Westview. 214 pp.DewarRE. 1997. Does it matter hatMadagas-caris an island? Hum. Ecol. 25(3):481-89Diegues AC. 1996. O Mito Moderno da Na-tureza Intocada. Sao Paulo,Braz: Hucitec.169 pp.Dirlik A. 1998. Globalism and the politics ofplace. Development41(2):7-13Durham WH. 1995. Political ecology and en-vironmentaldestruction n Latin America.In TheSocial CausesofEnvironmentalDe-struction in LatinAmerica, ed. M Painter,WH Durham, pp. 249-64. Ann Arbor:Univ. Mich. Press

EdgertonRB. 1992. Sick Societies: Challeng-ing the Myth of PrimitiveHarmony.NewYork: Free Press. 278 pp.Ellen RF. 1996. Thecognitive geometryof na-ture:a contextualapproach.See Descola &Palsson 1996, pp. 165-84EscobarA. 1995. EncounteringDevelopment.The Making and Unmaking of the ThirdWorld. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.Press. 290 pp.Estado do Acre. 1997. Lei #1235/97. Dispoesobre os instrumentosde controle do ac-cesso aos recursosgeneticos do Estado doAcre. Rio Branco, Braz: Gov. Estado doAcreEvemdenN. 1992. The Social Creationof Na-ture. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ.Press. 179 pp.FisherWF, ed. 1995. TowardSustainableDe-velopment?Struggling Over India's Nar-mada River.New York: SharpeFisher WH. 1994. Megadevelopment, envi-ronmentalism,and resistance:the institu-tional context of Kayap6 indigenous poli-tics in central Brazil. Hum. Org. 53(3):220-32Fisher WH. 1996.Native Amazoniansandthemaking of the Amazon wilderness: fromdiscourseof riches and slothto underdevel-opment.In Creatingthe Countryside.ThePolitics of Rural and EnvironmentalDis-course, ed. EMDupuis,P Vandergeest,pp.166-203. Philadelphia:TempleUniv.Press

Foresta RA. 1991. Amazon Conservation inthe Age of Development: The Limits ofProvidence. Gainesville:Univ. Fla. Press.340 pp.Fox MW. 1996. Justice and the communalgood. TerraNova 1(2):117-30GadgilM, Guha R. 1992. The Fissured Land.AnEcological Historyof India.Delhi: Ox-fordUniv. PressGarcia MP. 1992. The Venezuelan ecologymovement: symbolic effectiveness, socialpractices, and political strategies. In TheMaking of Social Movements in LatinAmerica, ed. A Escobar, S Alvarez, pp.150-70. Boulder,CO:WestviewGellner E. 1995. Anthropologyand Politics.Revolution in the Sacred Grove. Oxford,UK: Blackwell. 260 pp.Goldtooth TBK. 1995. Indigenous nations:summaryof sovereignty and its implica-tions for environmentalprotection.In En-vironmental Justice, ed. B Bryant, pp.139-48. Washington,DC: Island

Goodman AH, LeathermanTL, eds. 1998.Building a New Biocultural Synthesis.Political-Economic Perspectives on Hu-man Biology. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich.Press.486 pp.GottliebRS, ed. 1996. ThisSacredEarth. Re-ligion, Nature, Environment.New York:Routledge.675 pp.GrayA. 1991. The impactof biodiversitycon-servationon indigenous peoples. In Biodi-versity, ed. V Shiva, P Anderson, HSchiicking, A Gray, L Lohmann,D Coo-per, pp. 59-76. London:ZedGray A, ParelladaA, Newing H, eds. 1998.From Principles to Practice. IndigenousPeoples and Biodiversity ConservationinLatin America.Copenhagen:IWGIAGreenbergJB, Park TK. 1994. Political ecol-ogy. J. Polit. Ecol. 1:1-12Grenier L. 1998. Workingwith IndigenousKnowledge. A Guide or Researchers.Ot-tawa:Int.Dev. Res. Cent. 115 pp.Grove RH. 1995. Green Imperialism. Colo-nial Expansion,TropicalIslandEdensandthe Origins of Environmentalism,


28/33


1600-1860. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniv. Press. 540 pp.Guha R. 1989. Unquiet Woods: EcologicalChange and Peasant Resistance in the Hi-malaya. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. 214PP.Guha R. 1997. The environmentalismof the

poor. In Between Resistance and Revolu-tion, ed. RG Fox, O Starn,pp. 17-39. NewBrunswick,NJ: RutgersUniv. PressGuillet DW. 1992. Covering Ground: Com-munal WaterManagementand the State inthe PeruvianHighlands.Ann Arbor:Univ.Mich. Press. 254 pp.Gunn JD, ed. 1994. Global climate-humanlife: physical contexts of historic land-scapes. Hum. Ecol. 22(1)GuyerJ, LambinEF. 1993. Landuse in an ur-ban hinterland: ethnography and remotesensing in the studyof Africanintensifica-tion. Am.Anthropol.95:839-59HannumH. 1996.Autonomy,Sovereignty,andSelf-Determination. The Accommodationof ConflictingRights. Philadelphia:Univ.Penn. Press. 525 pp.HarawayD. 1992. When man is on the menu.In Incorporations,ed. J Crary,S Kwinter,pp. 39-4. New York:UrzoneHarries-JonesP. 1993. Between science andshamanism: the advocacy of environmen-talism in Toronto. See Milton 1993, pp.43-58Harries-JonesP. 1998. Anthropology, Envi-ronmentalismand the Risk Society. Pre-sented at Annu. Meet. Am. Ethnol. Soc./Can.Anthropol.Soc.HarveyD. 1989. The ConditionofPostmoder-nity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cul-turalChange.Oxford,UK: Blackwell. 378PP.HarveyD. 1996. Justice, Nature & the Geog-raphy of Difference. Oxford, UK: Black-well. 468 pp.HeadlandTN. 1997. Revisionism in ecologi-cal anthropology. Curr.Anthropol.38(4):605-25Hecht S, Cockbum A. 1989. The Fate of theForest. Developers, Destroyers and De-

fenders of the Amazon.New York: Verso357 pp.Holling CS, SandersonS. 1996. Dynamics ofdisharmonyin ecological and social sys-tems. InRights toNature, ed. SS Hanna,CFolke, K Miler, pp. 87-107. Washington,DC: IslandHughes JD. 1994. Pan's Travail. Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniv. Press. 276 pp.Hvalkof S, EscobarA. 1998. Nature,politicalecology, and social practice: toward anacademic andpolitical agenda. See Good-man & Leatherman1998, pp. 425-50Hviding E. 1996. Nature, culture,magic, sci-ence: on meta-languages orcomparison ncultural ecology. See Descola & Palsson1996, pp. 165-84Ingold T. 1992. Cultureand the perceptionofthe environment. In Bush Base-ForestFarm. Culture,EnvironmentandDevelop-ment, ed. E Croll, D Parkin, pp. 39-56.London:RoutledgeJacksonM. 1989. Paths Toward a Clearing.

Radical Empiricismand EthnographicIn-quiry. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.239pp.Jantsch E. 1980. The Self-Organizing Uni-verse. Scientific and HumanImplicationsof the Emerging Paradigm of Evolution.Oxford,UK: Pergamon.343 pp.Jodha NS. 1994. Commonpropertyresourcesand theruralpoor.InSocial Ecology, ed. RGuha, pp. 150-89. Delhi: Oxford Univ.PressJohnstonBR. 1994. The abuse of humanenvi-ronmentalrights: experienceandresponse.In WhoPays the Price?, ed. BR Johnston,pp. 219-35. Washington,DC: IslandKauffman SA. 1991. Antichaos and adapta-tion. Sci. Am. 265:78-84Keck ME, Sikkink K. 1998. Activists BeyondBorders. Advocacy Networks in Interna-tional Politics. Ithaca,NY: Comell Univ.Press.227 pp.Kimbrell A. 1996. Biocolonization

Documents

Little, Paul (1999). Environments and Environmentalisms in Anthropological Reserch