The Promise and Limitations Cultural Ecology: A Case Study in Tropical Forest Societies

For a time in the 20th century, cultural ecology was an exciting field at the forefront of scholarly research in anthropology and human-environment relations. Although cultural ecology is still used in many research projects, it has lost its popularity to the fields of political ecology and political economy. Why is this so? And is there any room for cultural ecology in 21st-century research? This essay explores these questions by comparing a classic text of cultural ecology, “Ritual Regulation of Environmental Relations Among A New Guinea People” by Roy Rappaport, with a newer text that uses some cultural ecology but is influenced mainly by political ecology, Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection by Anna Tsing. These texts both describe the agricultural practices of people who live in tropical rainforests, but have very different frameworks and conclusions. Classic cultural ecology has been valuable in sharing indigenous cultural practices and showing how adaptations to contained environments affect culture. It has been largely replaced by political ecology and political economy because of two major limitations: it does not sufficiently study of how outside influence, especially in the form of global capitalism, affects communities, and it does not sufficiently consider the knowledge and agency of indigenous people. However, cultural ecology’s focus on ecological systems and local practices can help today’s research.

Cultural ecology, a field popularized by anthropologist Julian Steward in the 1950’s, remained the basis of much research for several decades. It studies the ways in which cultural change is induced by adaptation to the environment (J. McCarthy, personal communication, September 9th, 2019). The societal management of natural resources is important to the discipline: this management is conceptualized as possibilist, not deterministic. The field uses ecological terms such as “adaptation”, “systems”, and “homeostasis” in its description of societies. Classic cultural ecological research was conducted in a strict ethnographic sense, usually concerning non-industrial “pastoralists, hunter–gathers, fishing cultures and small-scale cultivators”, although some later research focussed on other societies (Prudham, 2009).

Anthropologist Roy Rappaport’s 1967 monograph “Ritual Regulation of Environmental Relations Among A New Guinea People” is a prime example of ethnographic research in cultural ecology. The text describes the cultural practices, especially the religious rituals, of the Tsembaga, a small community of, as of 1964, 204 subsistence agriculturalists who live in a mountainous, forested region in Papua New Guinea (Rappaport, 1967, p. 18). Rappaport’s main argument is that the cognized environment (religious ritual cycle) of the Tsembaga, which includes the ritual expansion in number and slaughter of domesticated pigs, is an adaptation to the operational environment they live in that helps their culture remain in homeostasis (1967, pp. 28-29). Ways in which Rappaport argues that the ritual cycle leads to the stability of the Tsembaga community include: allowing for a long period of time in which pigs grow and selectively weed swidden plots that are productive in forest agriculture (1967, pp. 21, 24), and mandating that pigs should be killed when they reach carrying capacity and become nuisances that invade gardens and cause conflict between people (1967, pp. 24-26). Rappaport makes a convincing argument that the ritual cycle of the Tsembaga is shaped by their environment and contributes to their culture.

Anthropologist Anna Tsing’s book Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection is a prime example of ethnographic research primarily in political ecology that includes some elements of cultural ecology. Tsing dedicates much of her book to ethnographic research in Meratus Dayak or orang bukit (hill people) communities in Indonesian Borneo, who also practice swidden agriculture (2005, p.174). Her descriptions of the casual planting of fruit trees (Tsing, 2005, pp.176-177) and the cycle of swidden agriculture (Tsing, 2005, pp. 189-193) show that she does believe, to a point, that cultural ecological adaptation to the environment applies to Meratus Dayak culture. She states: “Secondary forest is always familiar forest for some group of people...Long-term biographical connections between people and forest regrowth are the basis of Meratus forest knowledge and management practices” (Tsing, 2005, p. 190). In the Ayuh River valley, the adaptation by the Meratus Dayak of swidden agriculture leads to cultural practices of migration that produce complex social ties, including connections with former neighbors now living far away and now-abandoned social and religious centers (Tsing, 2005, pp. 197-198). Both swidden agriculture and its resulting social practices help maintain the forest ecosystem and culture in the Meratus Dayak homeland.

The greatest limit of classic cultural ecology is that it treats “isolated” societies as largely self-contained, when in reality these societies are increasingly interacting with outside “modernizing” forces (Prudham, 2009). Rappaport does discuss the interactions in celebration, trade, courtship, and war of the Tsembaga with neighboring communities who have a similar way of life to them (1967, pp. 26-28). However, he does not mention how societies like the Tsembaga are threatened by outside extractive capitalist interests. Indeed, the Huli people of Papua New Guinea, who use pigs in similar ways to the Tsembaga, have seen plans go through for a natural gas pipeline through their land. They are also increasingly logging their culturally important forest to sell to an Australian company, and have experienced social disunity as Western culture begins to seep in (Kolinjivadi, 2011). In response to cultural ecology “provid[ing] little capacity for understanding power, the appropriation of surplus and valuation in the context of a global political economy” (Prudham, 2009), the field of political ecology developed. Anna Tsing describes political ecology as a field that “reminds us that human interactions with the environment respond to social conventions and political coercions—not just the pressure of numbers.” Political ecological research is increasingly important in a globalizing world.

Tsing, unlike Rappaport, thoroughly describes the interactions of the Meratus Dayak with global systems of power and capital, making her work mainly one of political ecology. Tsing highlights that Meratus Dayak trade and collection of forest products has ancient history, and that this trade’s commercialization has had disastrous effects on forests (2005, pp. 182-183). She describes the long history, stretching back to colonialism, of resource exploitation and disregard of indigenous property rights in Borneo. She then explains that many outside conservation groups have treated Borneo’s indigenous people similarly to colonialists and extractive industries, through promoting a strict natural/social division and therefore believing that they do not belong in the forest (Tsing, 2005, pp. 194-195). However, she also describes productive collaboration between Meratus Dayak villagers, nature lovers, and activists, showing that outside sociopolitical influences need not be negative (Tsing, 2005, p. 246).

Another limit of cultural ecology is, because of its focus on homeostatic systems, it does not sufficiently value the knowledge and agency, both individual and collective, of the people it studies. Rappaport, when discussing the Tsembaga consumption of pork in trying times, states “The Tsembaga, of course, know nothing of psychological stress” (1967, p. 22). In this passage, he assumes a lack of knowledge among the Tsembaga because they do not understand in a Western, scientific way. Rappaport (1967) also does not effectively report how individual Tsembaga view their society, whether any of them want to change aspects of it to make it more sustainable, or how they view him. To the contrary, Tsing values her Meratus Dayak friend and mentor’s knowledge of the lifeforms in and lifestyles of her community, and grants her wish to list local biodiversity (2005, pp. 155-156). Today’s researchers view indigenous informants as friends and allies, not just research subjects as classic cultural ecologists often did.

Cultural ecology is a valuable tool in understanding how largely self-contained societies interact with and are affected by their environment. And to be fair to Rappaport, the global systems of power political ecology focuses on were not yet greatly affecting the Tsembaga community in 1967. However, with the rise of globalization and greater empathy in research, the limits of cultural ecology have shown clear. Political ecology that still includes the best aspects of cultural ecology—a focus on hands-on ethnographic research and the study of ecological systems—should inform much great work in the future.

References

Kolinjivadi, V. (2011). Losing our pigs and our ancestors: threats to the livelihoods and

environment of Papua New Guinea. Retrieved from https://news.mongabay.com/2011/10/losing-our-pigs-and-our-ancestors-threats-to-the-livelihoods-and-environment-of-papua-new-guinea/.

Prudham, S. (2009). cultural ecology. In D. Gregory, The Dictionary of Human

Geography (5th ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Retrieved from http://goddard40.clarku.edu:2048/login?

qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.credoreference.com%2Fcontent%2Fentry%2Fbkhumgeo%2Fcultural_ecology%2F0%3FinstitutionId%3D862.

Rappaport, R. A. (1967). Ritual Regulation of Environmental Relations Among A New

Guinea People. Ethnology, 6(1), 17-30. doi:10.2307/3772735.

Tsing, A. L. (2005). Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton, New

Jersey: Princeton University Press.