Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 2700:2022:12 [2022/02/03 23:44] – external edit 127.0.0.1
+++ 2700:2022:12 [2022/05/16 18:42] (current) – [Revisiting the world-picture] Ryan Schram (admin)
@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 **Other reading:** Blaser (2013)
+===== Anthropology confidential =====
+A recent encounter with “culture.”
+===== Human ecology and political ecology =====
+An influential definition of political ecology is
+//"...the constantly shifting dialectic between society and land-based resources, and also within classes and groups within society itself" (Blaikie 1987, 17; see also Watts 1983).//
+==== Political ecology derives inspiration from Wolf in multiple ways ====
+//"[T]he __world of humankind__ constitutes a manifold, a totality of interconnected processes…" (Wolf 1984, 3).//
+===== Revisiting the world-picture =====
+Political ecology has its own “world-picture” in which nature and culture are separate. Imagine a map with many layers
+  * National boundaries
+  * Human communities
+  * Various, culturally specific adaptations and utilizations of material resources
+  * Blue lakes and oceans, green and brown landscapes
+Wolf calls on us to abandon the assumption of isolate social systems, but political ecology isolates human communities in another sense---on a separate map layer.
+===== Nature and culture are characters in a modernist metanarrative =====
+The central character of any historical narrative of modern progress is a specific version of the rational individual.
+The story goes:
+  * Before, the individual was trapped in ignorance and accepted it.
+  * As time goes on, they increasingly become free of this constraint.
+  * As traditional patterns fade away, there is more room for the individual’s conscious, rational mind to influence the world.
+  * The individual was once mastered by external forces, but now is its own master.
+Similarly, stories of social progress depict a society moving from tradition, stasis, and dependence to mastery of itself
+* Animals depend on nature
+* Humans use nature
+* Modern societies control nature.
+===== “We have never been modern” =====
+  * There is no such thing as modernity.
+    * There are no societies in which individuals have absolute freedom to create themselves.
+  * “We have never been modern” (Latour 1993)
+    * Western societies believe that they have refounded themselves on science, that is, that they exist independently of the natural world and can intervene in it.
+    * A society’s scientific knowledge arises from the intervention of the nonhuman in the human, from the material into the symbolic.
+    * Yam biology is the same as respect for shy yams: The proof of the yam pudding is in the eating.
+===== Links in a chain =====
+  * An essentialist theory of being
+    * A yam is a yam.
+    * A caribou is a caribou
+    * Yam personhood and atiku are ideas about yams and caribou
+  * A relationalist theory of being
+    * A yam is a person when a gardener is weeding
+      * The yam has a biological existence as a species because seed yams are stored, the genome is decoded
+      * The yam is nutritious food because it has been domesticated
+    * Atiku is present in caribou when Innu are hunting
+      * Caribou are a population when they are mapped, tagged, observed, regulated (even when these are done in consultation with and out of respect for the Innu value of caribou and hunting)
+===== Different networks, different worlds =====
+Do we live in a universe of many natures?
+Should ethnography describe more than cultural difference?
+Should anthropology posit multiple humanities?
 ===== References and further reading =====
+Blaikie, Piers M. 1987. //Land degradation and society//. London ; New York : Methuen. http://archive.org/details/landdegradations0000blai.
 Blaser, Mario. 2013. “Ontological Conflicts and the Stories of Peoples in Spite of Europe: Toward a Conversation on Political Ontology.” //Current Anthropology// 54 (5): 547–68. https://doi.org/10.1086/672270.
@@ Line 23: / Line 97: @@
 ———. 2016. “Is Another Cosmopolitics Possible?” //Cultural Anthropology// 31 (4): 545–70. https://doi.org/10.14506/ca31.4.05.
+Latour, Bruno. 1993. //We Have Never Been Modern//. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
+Watts, Michael J. 1983. //Silent Violence: Food, Famine, and Peasantry in Northern Nigeria//. Berkeley: University of California Press.
+Wolf, Eric R. 1982. //Europe and the People Without History.// Berkeley: University of California Press.