Critical Abstract 1

 Virginia Nazarea’s work “View from a Point: Ethnoecology as Situated Knowledge” appears to be written largely as a critique of previous understandings of ethnoecology and an examination of how ethnoecologists in the field need to increase their scope to include more categories.   Ethnoecology is a very holistic approach to understanding human-environment relations, and Nazarea’s writing seeks to widen the scope even further, making the study a far more valuable tool in understanding the complex relationship between the two. Nazarea’s ethnoecology allows for dynamism and fluidity. It examines the way that people see things, the different identities and cultural significances that contribute to that point of view, and their resulting actions. As one point of evidence, Nazarea critiques how others before her have been dismissive of native taxonomic structures, and points out how these systems of organization can be remarkably similar to Western models, while still being tailored for the specific needs and reasons of a local community. This particular part of Nazarea’s work was especially significant to me because it highlighted the condescension and superiority that can arise from Western examinations of different, especially indigenous, cultures. This point drives home Nazarea’s idea that in order for ethnoecology to be most impactful, it needs to be more comprehensive. Concepts of educational status, monetary status, gender, race and other categorizing elements significantly impact the power dynamic, and she believes an intersectional analysis of these things are necessary to contextualize knowledge within a society.

Critical Abstract 2

The excerpts from Kay Milton’s “Environmentalism and Cultural Theory: Exploring the Anthropology in Environmental Discourse” attempts to give context to the broad ideas of culture and anthropology, and analyze the role that these two concepts have in exploring human-environment relations. This reading establishes a framework: culture as a medium through which people connect with their environment, thusly relating the two concepts under the terminology of “cultural ecology” and giving context for anthropology as the tool to study that relationship. Milton remains purposefully vague in this piece, as she tries to show the reader different understandings of how these concepts fit together in a puzzle-like format. Most striking was Milton’s idea of “biosphere people” versus “ecosystem people” and the myths and truths surrounding these concepts. Who are the more environmentally aware groups? Is utilizing a single ecosystem more sustainable than those who utilize more than one, and do societies even exist today that can still claim the use of only one ecosystem? Milton goes on to examine the notion of “primitive ecological wisdom” and how this is in fact a myth. While this helps for the reader to analyze preconceived notions about human-environment relations more critically, it is an interesting concept in opposition to other authors we’ve read (Nazarea/Netting) who comment on Western societies dismissal of indigenous groups and their relationships and knowledge of the environment. Milton’s piece displays the complicated relationship between culture and nature, and addresses how the key link between these two concepts is adaptation.

Critical Abstract 3

“Smallhoders, Householders” by Robert Netting examines the importance of smallholders and the vast information these groups possess regarding the environmental needs of their ecosystem, despite colonial dismissal of their knowledge. The theme within Netting’s writing and research is the concept of sustainability, and his fieldwork and data prove how these communities are able to innovate to create culturally appropriate answers to their environmental needs. As small social organizations, how are smallholders sustainable and successful in their endeavors? Netting argues that not only do smallholders adapt to their ever-changing environments, but they must also adapt to their volatile economies. Netting’s studies of indigenous smallholder populations are important because it shows conclusive evidence against the myth that these communities lack the ability and knowledge to be sustainable. The significance in Netting’s research is that it begins to remove the distance from the dichotomy of “Western” and “Non-Western” and other opposites considered in environmental discourse. When analyzing the global environment and attempting to understand how everything fits together in a series of feedback loops, polarity cannot exist between communities. The dichotomy of Western thought versus the rest of the world is especially harmful because it creates a standard by which all human-environmental actions are compared, and this is not always accurate. Netting’s writing and research gives important insights into how sustainable practices exist in non-Western societies, and allows for a premise upon which other anthropologists continue examining how different social organizations impact their local and global environments.