Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Environmental Anthropology
Final Paper
As I write this, the World's leaders are gathering in Copenhagen, Denmark to negotiate a
solution to one of the biggest problems to face humanity. They are not seeking an end to the
many social ills that plague our world such as war, poverty, hunger and disease, though many
of those will play a role; they are trying to find ways to address the most far reaching and
potentially devastating environmental problem we have seen, Global Climate Change. Rarely
has the world been at once so united and so torn apart by an issue. Wealthy countries are trying
to find a way to continue the behavior that has brought us here in the first place – burning fossil
fuels to foster economic growth – and poorer countries want to push ahead with growing their
own economies because they feel left behind. There is an inequality of relations that many
people claim constitutes an environmental debt owed to poor nations. The question is, how can
the wealthy nations pay that debt while maintaining their own prosperity?
Along with the World leaders have gathered millions of protestors, both within
Copenhagen and around the world. These groups are demanding a real solution, not a band aid
or green-washed fix like the cap and trade system that's being offered in the US. Many of them
claim that the carbon reductions promised don't amount to enough to reverse the severe effects
of climate change. Some of these activists represent marginalized groups from around the
world – those that have ben left out of the prosperity of the world system, who will be most
Page 1
affected by the effects of climate change, and who will likely bear most of the costs of any
solutions. These groups seek to have their voices heard among all of the talk. They want to
ensure that their ways of life will be preserved, and that the World leaders will not forget about
Climate change is the first environmental issue that affects all of humanity on a global
scale, and the nations of the world are coming together to find a global solution. However, all
of the solutions being proposed fall into a Western Modernist framework, emphasizing
government regulation, technological advances and market based approaches – the same kind
of thinking and behavior that brought us here in the first place. The question is, can the same
kind of thinking ever give us a real solution? Perhaps we need to be looking for alternatives to
the Modernist solutions. Such alternatives are beginning to emerge in the margins of world
system; alternatives which may provide more effective, and more equitable solutions to the
environmental threat than the people in Copenhagen could ever hope to achieve.
Many scholars claim that we are currently in a stage of Late Modernity, where, despite
the efforts of critical analysis and the rising voices of subaltern groups, the dominant nations of
the world are attempting to continue the Modernist project (Giddens 1991). This system, based
on a disembedded desire for endless progress and endless growth, is responsible for many of
the environmental and social problems that we face. It is important, therefore, to situate
Modernity in its historical conditions in order to understand where it came from, how we got to
our current position in the world system and what we can do to fix the problems with which we
are faced.
Page 2
Modernity emerged in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, but it's roots extend back to
the 15th century in the beginning of the Age of Exploration, the growth of the nation-state and
the colonization of the New World (Escobar 2004). Those who benefitted most from this
expansion were those who could disconnect themselves from social and ecological ties; those
who could travel to distant regions, exploit the resources and people there and return to Europe,
the global center, to trade the fruits of those resources. Buckminster Fuller called them the
Great Pirates, and many of them were just that (Fuller 1982). Sir Francis Drake, for example,
is regarded either as a pirate who robbed and pillaged the seas or as a national hero who
brought great wealth to the British empire. These individuals became the new global elite,
supplanting the aristocracy that had ruled before them, often through violent revolutions that
claimed to be in the name of “the people.” Once taking power, however, they often
It was from this crucible that Modernity emerged as a philosophical, social and cultural
system. Philosophically, it positioned Man as the center of all knowledge and rationality as the
foundation for knowing. Sociologically, it was disembedded from local context as relations of
promoted individualism, freedom and equality utilizing a language of rights (Escobar 2004).
The exploitative relations which gave rise to this system were retroactively naturalized by
projecting an image of all Others as inferior and in need of guidance from technocratic experts.
Furthermore, these same exploitative relations, previously defined by distance, were then
introjected into relations of proximity by abstracting and disembedding people and the
Page 3
environment with the tools of economics, political theory and science (Graeber 2007; Hornborg
2001). This meant that no person or ecosystem was free from the possibility of exploitation;
people became labor, voters or consumers and ecosystems were reduced to an amalgamation of
resources to be extracted and exploited. No other world system had been so successful in both
encompassing the globe and transforming its own people and environments into commodities
to be exploited.
Expanding out from Europe, Modernity has since found its way into almost every part
of the globe – attempting to homogenize, to make the Other into itself or, where that wasn't
possible, to subvert and marginalize the Others. The process began with colonialism, but has
since taken on a new face with neoliberal economics and the strategic use of debt. Modernity
has become Globalized. Some scholars claim that there is nothing outside of Modernity, that it
has effectively subsumed every part of the world and every aspect of our daily lives (Giddens
1991).
supports it. Because it is based on abstractions and an insatiable drive for growth and
expansion, Modernity is compelled to consume both the people and the environments upon
which it is based. Environmentalism emerged from the existential anxiety that resulted when
this contradiction was recognized, as people began to witness, first-hand, the harmful effects of
the Modern way of life (Grove-White). However, environmentalism has increasingly been
Page 4
induce a delocalizing effect, deterritorializing social and ecological life (Hornborg 2001;
The result is a conflict mirroring the nature/culture divide that is one of the hallmarks of
Modernity (Cronon 1996), pitting “dark green” environmentalists who seek to protect the
environment from humans at all costs against those who believe that the world will forever
accommodate our needs. Mainstream environmentalism seeks to find a balance between the
two by “greening” the economy – quantifying environmental services and values, attempting to
account for environmental destruction in the economic system, and supporting consumer based
environmental responsibility. However, none of these solutions situate people within the
environment, instead they play logic games with abstract concepts in order to find solutions
which have little to do with actual environmental problems and may actually do more harm
than good. “Without the constant, experience-near resonance of place, these voices risk
forgetting the contexts in which they were raised, devoting themselves to the perfection of their
Take for example, the cases of fisheries management, biodiversity conservation, and
based in abstract concepts, rather than the lived experience of those who lived in the affected
areas. When these solutions were applied, they often failed because they lacked the complexity
and adaptability to deal with the local conditions both ecological and social. They often either
pushed the local communities out of the system all together, as in the case of biodiversity
Page 5
conservation or ignored local knowledge and local conditions that alter the implications of
imposed solutions. In many cases, they failed despite warning by locals who recognized the
potential problems and tried to tell the program administrators what they saw (Ostrom 2009).
question is, from where will these alternatives arise? Some globalization scholars have claimed
that there is nothing outside of modernity – that modernity has effectively subsumed every
Other (Giddens 1991). However, Modernity has never been truly totalizing; it has never fully
permeated the daily lives of people on the ground. Even in Europe and the US, where it gained
most of its momentum, there have always been pockets of space and time where modernity
never fully permeated (Escobar, 2007). In these places, life is defined by particular
from these spaces, across the globe, that new alternatives to global Modernity are beginning to
take shape. “[T]here are practices of difference that remain in the exteriority
conquered and transformed, if you wish, and also produced partly through
alternative forms in several key ways. They are place-based rather than space-based, they are
self-organized from below rather than imposed from outside, they are heterogenous rather than
homogenous, and they are polycentric rather than monocentric. These qualities combine to
create an alternative that is nearly impossible for Modernity to subsume because they are so
Page 6
dramatically different from the Modernist project (Escobar 2008; Rocheleau 2009).
Groups which are place-based are fundamentally counter to the modernist project. “...
its identity is constructed and never fixed” (Escobar 2008; 30). The way of
life in these communities is deeply entangled with the environments in which they are found.
Where modernity seeks to disembed life from social and ecological ties through generalized,
People who work the land, for example, have a sense of the environment that's based in
lived experience and practice developed over the course of many years. This provides them
with an embodied knowledge that ties their lives to the land in a unique way (Escobar 2008).
Typically, they have an investment in the land, not just as a source of income, but as a basis for
a way of life, a heritage. Furthermore, as these communities persist for long periods of time,
they become co-constructors of the ecosystems that they inhabit. Often ecological research will
demonstrate that these regions are rich and biodiverse precisely because of the practice of the
people who live there (Rocheleau 2009). The fact that their way of life is deeply entangled
with the environmental conditions, means that the preservation of the land is the same as the
That's not to say that everyone should drop what they're doing, move out to the country
Page 7
and start working the land. That would result in a land grab and would simply spread the
population out over a much wider area, creating more problems than it would solve. The kinds
of environmentalism promoted by people like Wendell Berry are appealing for their pastural
utopianism, but ultimately they are untenable. Working the land becomes a kind of poetic or
ascetic practice for those who can afford to do it without earning a living from it (White 1996).
Farmers can't afford to do that and neither can poor urbanites, nor would such a practice be
capable of supplying the world with its basic needs. It would be the wealthy who would benefit
mostly from such an environmental exodus and the poor would again be stuck with the
consequences.
workers as the foundation of society, and seek to build connections from them to the rest of us.
This is already beginning to take shape in some parts of the industrialized world through local
agriculture movements, CSAs and farmers markets. If we take care of the people who work the
land – instead of basing our relationship to those workers on unequal exchange, power and
systemic exploitation – then they will take care of us and the environment.
novelty at two levels: at the level of the organizing logic itself (self-
Page 8
general systems theory, chaos theory and other similar areas. It has been
processes such as the development of the fetus, and, more recently, social
organizational structures that are imposed from above. The groups are
et. al. 1987). A rhizome is a root structure where the roots of individual
plants fuse together to form a massive tangled root system which is more
can be removed from the larger structure and still be viable, though in a
modified form. When you pull up a clump of grass, for example, you will
Page 9
see that it is made up of many different grass plants fused together. If you
break up the clump into many pieces, and spread them throughout your
lawn, they will each take root and make a new clump of grass (Deleuze et.
al. 1987).
articulate more resilient. Should one solution fail, then the whole system
doesn't fail – instead other groups may learn from others mistakes and
create new, more robust solutions. These solutions are more localized,
shown that global solutions are not necessarily better than localized,
or groups may get away with breaking the rules because of insufficient
problem, but actually aren't. Instead they are simply continuing the
practices that cause the problem in the first place, while deluding the public
into thinking that they are helping (Ostrom 2009). In the polycentric
approaches that she supports, the rules for governing resources emerge
Page 10
from the relationship between the different communities and the land.
renegotiation rather than imposed from above – in other words, they are
because they are regulated from within rather than from the outside and
2009).
Page 11
organized so that no single group can dominate the discourse, and the
group has their own specific set of concerns and every group within the
network has it's own agenda. This means that social movements are able
(Juris 2008).
with the Gay Rights movement, but they may be, and particularly when
broader environmental networks and with other place-based actors. “In this
Page 12
place-based yet transnationalized.” (Escobar 2008; 32).
sense, in that they are struggling to protect the environment for abstract
are deeply entangled with their environment, and because the preservation
which sustain it (McNeil 2005). When these conditions are threatened, the
provide a way for the people to defend their environment and their way of
life against outside forces that seek to exploit or otherwise limit the
environmental
Often times, environmental justice is also tied to issues of race and gender,
as those are the two main ways that Modernity has marginalized groups.
Page 13
below, have used the concept of environmental justice in terms of the
literature. Below are three examples that are of particular interest for
developing an understanding of the way these groups are formed, how they
The group emerged in the land struggles of the 1970s and 80s during which members used non-
violent methods to obtain land, rights to free-speech and protest and better schools, clinics and
over 700 members in 500 families. Each group holds separate meetings and sends
representatives to the Federation's general assemblies. Also involved in the group were Farm
cooperative activists, Catholic Liberation Theology groups, and general Catholic Church
In the 1980s the communities were faced with a challenge. The government, in the
smallholder farmers from clearing land for farm plots or from making charcoal. Data collected
by Rocheleau suggests that the government selectively used conservation science to paint the
Page 14
local communities as being harmful and to downplay their role in grooming a rich, biodiverse
landscape. The National Forest Service, a branch of the military, arrested and fined farmers for
cutting down trees on their own property. At the same time, the state encouraged land
speculators, ranchers and corporations to clear more land for agriculture. Smallholder farmers
were forced to find other work to support themselves and their families.
In the early 1990s, the Federation joined with an international NGO – ENDA
midwifery resources for the communities. As the relationship took shape, however, ENDA
became a partner in other sustainable development projects. They helped to negotiate a deal
with the National Forest Service to allow members of the local communities to plant and
harvest accacia trees for a sustainable agroforestry project. By focusing on acacia trees, which
are generally considered to be invasive species but are also excellent sources of timber as well
as ethnobotanical medicines, ENDA and the Federation were able to convince the government
and the military to allowe them to harvest from the protected region. The result was the
creation of the Forest Enterprise timber project, a Wood Producers Association and a
cooperative sawmill – all of which have been very successful, benefiting both the local
Rocheleau argues that the Federation constitutes what she refers to as a “rooted
network” which sought to address both the environmental conditions that threatened the
communities as well as the unequal distribution of power. What emerged was a place-based
organization, built upon a radically democratic political structure which prevents any one
Page 15
community or group from taking full control. She also demonstrates another common theme in
place-based social movements: the importance of women. In The Federation, it was thought
that men played a central role since they were the main members of the farmers associations
and wood producers associations. However, Rocheleau found that, because of their role in the
Housewives associations, and their influence in the day to day routine of the family, women
were actually more responsible for the basic organizational structure of the Federation.
Another case (McNeil 2005) demonstrates that these place-based social movements do
not only come from peripheral regions – they can also emerge within industrial nations like the
U.S. In the Appalachian region, a new environmental threat has emerged in recent decades.
The mountains have been mined for coal and other minerals for hundreds of years, but never
has that mining been so destructive as the practice of mountaintop removal (MTR). In MTR,
the mountain is stripped of all of its trees, the top of the mountain is removed using large earth
moving equipment, and the seams of coal underneath are extracted. The mining companies
who use the technique claim that it is the most efficient way to extract coal, and that it actually
Many environmental groups have opposed the practice with little success. However, a
new form of organization has taken shape around the issue and they have had some success in
limiting and mitigating the effects of MTR. The primary example of such a group is Coal
River Mountain Watch (CRMW). What makes CRMW unique is that it is an organization
based in the communities affected most by MTR. These are mining communities, often with a
high proportion of union miners, but they are no less harmed by the practice of MTR. Miners
Page 16
are often opposed to the practice because it costs jobs; MTR is highly mechanized, so it
requires fewer people to work the mines. Many of the people in the communities themselves
are simply fed up with the environmental problems brought about by MTR. For them, the
mountains constitute a way of life. They hunt in the forests, fish the streams, gather ginseng
and other herbs and foods from the area, and MTR is putting an end to all of that – destroying
the very mountains that make life in Appalachia what it is. These communities have dealt with
the pollution of their water, the destruction of the forests and the mountains, the loss of quality
mining jobs, the infiltration of coal dust into their homes, and the degradation of the
communities themselves. As a result, they've organized against MTR, the companies that
unregulated.
environmentalist group and they are often hesitant to identify themselves as environmentalists.
The reason is that environmentalism in the region is identified with outsiders who come in and
try to dictate to the locals how they should live their lives. CRMW, on the other hand grew out
of the frustrations of the communities themselves. As a result, they describe themselves first
and foremost as community activists. “CRMW's activism, however, is not rooted in abstract
contingencies of everyday life in the coalfields” (McNeil, 249). They recognized an issue
within the community – the effects of MTR – and organized to resist it. As one member put it:
“...[T]he more we tried to establish justice in the coalfields, the more we found out that social
Page 17
issues and injustice runs hand-in-hand with the environment” (McNiel 2005). By building on
this sense of community CRMW has been able to garner a broad base of support within the
communities. Additionally, they've been able to work with the miners unions rather than
Some of the limitations of social movements become apparent in CRMW, though. For
example, the fact that many of the members don't want to stop mining and burning coal could
be seen as running counter to a genuine environmentalism. Coal is a very dirty fuel, spewing
mercury into our water and sulfur and carbon into our air. However, the way of life of the
people in Appalachia is dependent upon coal mining – many of the families are long-time union
supporters and it would be difficult to imagine life in the region without the coal mines. It is
one thing to oppose mountaintop removal on the grounds that it devastates the local
environment and the local communities, but quite another to suggest a halt to mining in
general. CRMW has often had disputes with other environmental groups because of this issue.
CRMW depends on the support of the union and the community members, and, because of that,
the group cannot afford to come out in opposition to coal mining in general. Furthermore,
while the consequences of MTR are clear and dramatic, the same people are not opposed to
other forms of environmental destruction. This dramatically limits the scope of the
organization and creates tensions both within the group and between CRMW and other groups.
Nevertheless, CRMW could be seen as a node in a network which draws together the
environmental issues and the social issues where the two might not have come together in the
past. It could be seen as a root tying both the environmental and the social to the lived
experience of the communities that are affected by MTR. Without this important connection,
Page 18
the environmentalism that is articulated around MTR might end up doing more harm to the
Urban people have ties to the land as well, and, despite the overwhelming influence of
Modernity, can develop a sense of deep entanglement too. In Stockholm, Sweden in the 1990s,
plans were made to develop a large part of the National Urban Park (NUP) (Ernstson 2008).
The park is a 27 square kilometer woodland area close to the city center. Researchers have
established it as a highly biodiverse area and the source of many ecosystem services in the city.
These qualities are partially based upon the long-term use of the park by various groups
including allotment gardens and by hundreds of years of royal management. As a result of the
development plans, a group of over sixty organizations joined together to preserve the park –
creating the Ecopark movement. In spite of having gained legal protection for the park in
1995, exploitation plans continue to arise and the movement has had to continually mobilize to
The Ecopark movement utilized a narrative in which the history of the park as a royal
land and the ecology of the park were seen as holistic and interlaced. This allowed the
movement to broaden it's support and mobilize a diverse group of organizations in defense of
the park. The movement comprised a social network in which some groups used their influence
to gain political support while others groups were defined by use relations with the park itself.
This diversity of groups was important to the success of the network, however, the researchers
pointed out that the structure of the network plays an important role as well. In this particular
case, the fact that some of the key user groups, and those groups with intimate knowledge of
the park were marginalized in the movement meant that the resulting management structures
Page 19
were limited. Ernstson proposes a model in which civil organizations, management groups and
user groups are integrated to form a more holistic and resilient form of ecosystem management
practice.
Clearly, there are many questions that remain to be answered if social movements and
place-based environmentalism are to be taken seriously. For one, it isn't clear that place-based
groups are always necessarily more environmentally friendly than other non-place-based
groups are more environmentally responsible. Instead, researchers must define what
entangled with its environment in order to be considered as such? Also, to what degree can
place-based group be integrated into larger world system forces before they can no longer be
defined as place-based?
networks integrate environmental issues that affect different scales. For example, how do they
address something like climate change, which affects the entire globe? Elinor Ostrom has
suggested that polycentric approaches are often more effective than monocentric approaches,
but is this always the case? When should governments intervene or step aside? How do the
many, locally based actors in a polycentric system integrate global scale problems into their
approach?
A third set of questions has to do with what happens when a social movement falls short
of seeking a solution that benefits the environment or what happens when a social movement's
Page 20
goals are, in fact, counter to an environmental agenda? For example, a social movement whose
main goal is to gain more jobs for a community might accept any number of solutions that have
little to do with preserving the local or the global environment. They may accept more mining
operations, a coal-fired power plant, or logging operations. Should those desires be always
respected simply because they emerge from the communities themselves? At what point do we
reject a local group's desires based on some environmental claim that they don't perceive to be
relevant?
In Copenhagen, the world's leaders attempt to hash out a solution to Global Climate
Change and the rest of us hope for something useful to come out of the talks. However, we
might be looking in the wrong place. It's possible that solutions to this global problem will not
arise in centers of power such as Europe and the US, but rather in the margins and borders of
global Modernity. This is not to say that we should stop trying to find global solutions, but that
we shouldn't allow that search to blind us to alternatives that are always emerging from
unexpected places. Perhaps these alternatives will provide the key to moving beyond Late
Modernity towards a future that is both more environmentally responsible, and more just.
Page 21
Cronon, William. 1996. The Trouble with Wilderness: or, Getting back to the Wrong Nature. In
Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. W.W. Norton & Co.,
October 17.
Delanda, Manuel. 2006. A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory And Social
Complexity. annotated edition. Continuum, November 14.
Deleuze, Gilles, Felix Guattari, and Brian Massumi. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism
and Schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press, December.
Ernstson, Henrik. 2008. In Rhizomia. Stockholm University.
Escobar, A. 2004. Beyond the Third World: imperial globality, global coloniality and anti-
globalisation social movements. Third World Quarterly: 207–230.
———. 2007. WORLDS AND KNOWLEDGES OTHERWISE The Latin American
modernity/coloniality research program. CULTURAL STUDIES-ANDOVER- 21, no. 2-
3: 179.
Escobar, Arturo. 2008. Territories of Difference: Place, Movements, Life, Redes. Duke
University Press, November.
Fuller, R. Buckminster. 1982. Critical Path. 2nd ed. St. Martin's Griffin, February 15.
Giddens, Anthony. 1991. The Consequences of Modernity. 1st ed. Stanford University Press,
March 1.
Graeber, David. 2004. Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology. 1st ed. Prickly Paradigm
Press, April 1.
———. 2007. Possibilities: Essays on Hierarchy, Rebellion, and Desire. AK Press, September
1.
Grove-White, Robin. 1993. Environmentalism: A new moral discourse for technological
society? In Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology. London ;;New York:
Routledge.
Juris, J. S. 2008. Networking futures: the movements against corporate globalization. Duke
Univ Pr.
McNeil, Bryan. 2005. Searching for home where mountains move : the collision of economy,
environment, and an American community.
Mitchell, Melanie. 2009. Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford University Press, USA, April 1.
Page 22
Ostrom, E. 2009. A Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change. Background paper
for the WDR 2010.
Rocheleau, Dianne. 2009. Rooted networks, webs of relation and the power of situated science:
Bringing the models back down to earth in Zambrana. Clark University.
White, Richard. 1996. "Are You an Environmentalist or Do You Work for a Living": Work and
Nature. In Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, ed. William
Cronon. W.W. Norton & Co., October 17.
Page 23