Author : Wahid Ahmad
Dissatisfaction with the cultural ecology research approach
led scholars to look for new theories and tools. They found inspiration in
general or biological ecology, specifically the ecosystem concept. This novel approach, called ecological anthropology, focuses on studying how cultural and
biological factors influence people's survival, reproduction, development,
longevity, and spatial positions.
Roy Rappaport and Andrew Vayda played a significant role in
promoting this ecosystem approach. They argued that using terms like
"cultural ecology" might limit the application of principles from
biological ecology to the study of human adaptation. Instead, they preferred
the term "ecological anthropology" to emphasize the
interconnectedness of cultural and biological factors.
Vayda and Rappaport believed that anthropologists should adopt
units of study from biology, such as population, community, and ecosystem. This
comprehensive approach allows a deeper understanding of how humans, like other
species, interact with their environment. They highlighted common interests
between ecologists and anthropologists, like defining territorial rights and
establishing group identity, which can be viewed through an ecological lens.
Their fieldwork in Papua New Guinea, where they studied war as
part of an interdisciplinary team, showed them the value of the ecosystem
concept in integrating work across ecology, geography, and anthropology. Ecological anthropology provides a broader and more integrated perspective on
how culture and biology shape human behaviour and survival.
Vayda and Rappaport studied how ecological principles apply to
human behaviour, particularly in New Guinea. Vayda looked at the relationship
between warfare and factors like population changes and resource competition
among clans. Rappaport focused on rituals in the Tsembaga Maring tribe,
examining how they regulate things like pig herds, land use, and alliances, maintaining a balance in their ecosystem.
Rappaport found that when the pig population grew too much, elders initiated a ritual slaughter to reduce numbers. This led to
alliances between groups and subsequent warfare, redistributing the population
and restoring equilibrium to the system. Bennett criticized Rappaport's use of
biological analogies but acknowledged the study's importance in showing how
human behaviour is part of ecosystems.
The
disagreement between Rappaport and Bennett lies in their emphasis on systemic
feedback loops and individual decision-making. Rappaport believes that cultural
patterns, like the ritual-warfare complex, play a significant role, while
Bennett argues that individual decision-making is more crucial in technologically
complex societies.
Bennett
also questioned the distinction between cultural ecology and the ecosystem
approach, suggesting that the choice between them depends on the size and
complexity of the group being studied. In smaller tribes with primitive technologies,
the ecosystem approach works well. However, in larger, complex societies,
institutions and technology create a distance between the population and the
environment. Bennett argued that the ecosystem approach struggles in these
contexts due to the complexity of systems, leading to a shift away from it in
the 1980s. However, recent developments in agent-based modelling allow the
analysis of complex systems and individual behaviour in detailed landscapes.
Rappaport's
study from 1968 raises questions about the usefulness of the concept of
homeostasis, which is the idea of maintaining equilibrium or stability in a
system. The homeostasis concept is often criticized for focusing too much on
keeping things the way they are and not considering the dynamics of change.
Rappaport
argues that adaptation to the environment is not just about maintaining
stability but involves constant adjustment and even some structural changes in
response to disturbances or changes. While lower-level mechanisms work to
maintain stability, higher-level responses allow for more general adaptations
to ensure survival.
There
are issues with how the ecosystem concept was used, such as treating ecosystems
like biological organisms, focusing too much on energy flows and measurements,
and neglecting the role of individuals. Recent improvements in ecological
studies have shifted concerns to factors like nutrient cycling,
decision-making, system complexity, and biodiversity loss.
Researchers
now focus on historical factors, environmental history, and the role of
individuals and households. They are challenged to determine boundaries for
their research, and more sophisticated approaches have been proposed.
The
ecosystem perspective alone cannot answer all questions about human adaptation.
Future studies are likely to be more successful when integrating a general
systems approach with the study of how individuals develop their strategies. To overcome the tendency toward static equilibrium models, studying
how populations adapt to stress or changing situations is suggested. This
approach involves investigating how individuals respond to challenges, whether
stress leads to changes in population structure or cultural patterns, and how
populations adjust when the stress is removed. Such studies are more likely to
reveal systemic interrelations in populations experiencing changing situations
compared to those in stable situations.
Ecological Anthropology
Dissatisfaction with the cultural ecology research approach
led scholars to look for new theories and tools. They found inspiration in
general or biological ecology, specifically the ecosystem concept. This new
approach, called ecological anthropology, focuses on studying how cultural and
biological factors influence people's survival, reproduction, development,
longevity, and spatial positions.
Roy Rappaport and Andrew Vayda played a significant role in
promoting this ecosystem approach. They argued that using terms like
"cultural ecology" might limit the application of principles from
biological ecology to the study of human adaptation. Instead, they preferred
the term "ecological anthropology" to emphasize the
interconnectedness of cultural and biological factors.
Vayda and Rappaport believed that anthropologists should adopt
units of study from biology, such as population, community, and ecosystem. This
comprehensive approach allows a deeper understanding of how humans, like other
species, interact with their environment. They highlighted common interests
between ecologists and anthropologists, like defining territorial rights and
establishing group identity, which can be viewed through an ecological lens.
Their fieldwork in Papua New Guinea, where they studied war as
part of an interdisciplinary team, showed them the value of the ecosystem
concept in integrating work across ecology, geography, and anthropology. Essentially,
ecological anthropology provides a broader and more integrated perspective on
how culture and biology shape human behavior and survival.
Vayda and Rappaport studied how ecological principles apply to
human behavior, particularly in New Guinea. Vayda looked at the relationship
between warfare and factors like population changes and resource competition
among clans. Rappaport focused on rituals in the Tsembaga Maring tribe,
examining how they regulate things like pig herds, land use, and alliances, ultimately
maintaining a balance in their ecosystem.
Rappaport found that when the pig population grew too much, a
ritual slaughter was initiated by elders to reduce numbers. This led to
alliances between groups and subsequent warfare, redistributing the population
and restoring equilibrium to the system. Bennett criticized Rappaport's use of
biological analogies but acknowledged the study's importance in showing how
human behavior is part of ecosystems.
The
disagreement between Rappaport and Bennett lies in their emphasis on systemic
feedback loops and individual decision-making. Rappaport believes that cultural
patterns, like the ritual-warfare complex, play a significant role, while
Bennett argues that individual decision-making is more crucial in technologically
complex societies.
Bennett
also questioned the distinction between cultural ecology and the ecosystem
approach, suggesting that the choice between them depends on the size and
complexity of the group being studied. In smaller tribes with primitive technologies,
the ecosystem approach works well. However, in larger, complex societies,
institutions and technology create a distance between the population and the
environment. Bennett argued that the ecosystem approach struggles in these
contexts due to the complexity of systems, leading to a shift away from it in
the 1980s. However, recent developments in agent-based modeling allow the
analysis of complex systems and individual behavior in detailed landscapes.
Rappaport's
study from 1968 raises questions about the usefulness of the concept of
homeostasis, which is the idea of maintaining equilibrium or stability in a
system. The homeostasis concept is often criticized for focusing too much on
keeping things the way they are and not considering the dynamics of change.
Rappaport
argues that adaptation to the environment is not just about maintaining
stability but involves constant adjustment and even some structural changes in
response to disturbances or changes. While lower-level mechanisms work to
maintain stability, higher-level responses allow for more general adaptations
to ensure survival.
There
are issues with how the ecosystem concept was used, such as treating ecosystems
like biological organisms, focusing too much on energy flows and measurements,
and neglecting the role of individuals. Recent improvements in ecological
studies have shifted concerns to factors like nutrient cycling,
decision-making, system complexity, and biodiversity loss.
Researchers
now focus on historical factors, environmental history, and the role of
individuals and households. They are challenged to determine boundaries for
their research, and more sophisticated approaches have been proposed.
The ecosystem perspective alone cannot answer all questions about human adaptation. Future studies are likely to be more successful when integrating a general systems approach with the study of how individuals develop their own strategies. To overcome the tendency toward static equilibrium models, studying how populations adapt to stress or changing situations is suggested. This approach involves investigating how individuals respond to challenges, whether stress leads to changes in population structure or cultural patterns, and how populations adjust when the stress is removed. Such studies are more likely to reveal systemic interrelations in populations experiencing changing situations compared to those in stable situations.