East-West Environment and Policy Institute
Research Report No. 14
Conceptual Approaches
to Human Ecology
by A. Terry Rambo
East-West Center
ISSN-0739-6716
Honolulu, Hawaii
T H E EAST-WEST CENTER isaneducational institution establishedin Hawaii in 1960
by theUnited StatesCongress. TheCenter'smandate is"to promote better relations
and understanding among the nations of Asia, the Pacific, andthe United States
through cooperative study, training, andresearch."
Each year nearly 2,000 graduate students, scholars,professionals in business and
government, andvisiting specialists engage in research with the Center's international staff o n major issuesand problems facingtheAsianandPacific region.Since
1960, more than 30,000 men and w o m e n from theregion have participated inthe
Center's cooperative programs.
The Center'sresearchand educational activities are conducted in five institutesCommunication, Culture Learning, Environment and Policy, Population, and Resource Systems—and inits Pacific \s\ands Development Program,O p e n Grants, and
Center-wide programs.
Although principal funding continuestoc o m e from theU.S. Congress, more than
20 Asian and Pacific governments, aswell as private agencies and corporations,
have provided contributions for program support. The East-WestCenter isa public,
nonprofit corporation withan international board ofgovernors.
T H E EAST-WEST E N V I R O N M E N T A N D POLICY INSTITUTE was established in
October 1977to increase understanding of the interrelationships among policies
designedto meet abroad rangeofhuman and societal needsovertime andthenatural systems and resources o n which these policies depend or impact. Through
interdisciplinary and multinational programs of research, study, and training, the
Institute seeksto develop and apply concepts andapproaches useful in identifying
alternatives available to decision makers andin assessingthe implications of such
choices. Progressand results of Institute programs aredisseminated inthe East-West
Center region through research reports, books, workshop reports, working papers,
newsletters,and other educational and informational materials.
William H .Matthews, Director
East-West Environment and PolicyInstitute
East-WestCenter
1777 East-West Road
Honolulu, Hawaii 96848
Conceptual Approaches
to Human Ecology
by
A. Terry Rambo
RESEARCH INFORMATION SERVICES
EAST-WEST CENTER
MAY- 51999
1601 EAST-WESTH0A0
HONOLULU,HAWAII 96848-1601
Research Report No. 14• June1983
East-West Environment and Policy Institute
A . T E R R Y R A M B O is a research associate and coordinator of the H u m a n
Interactions with Tropical Ecosystems P r o g r a m A r e a at the E n v i r o n m e n t and
Policy Institute, Easi-Wesi Center, H o n o l u l u , H a w a i i . Before j o i n i n g E A P I ,
Dr. R a m b o was a lecturer at the U n i v e r s i t y of M a l a y a in K u a l a L u m p u r and a
visiting professor ai the Dalat U n i v e r s i t y Graduate School of Politics and Economics in S a i g o n , V i e t n a m .
LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublication Data
Rambo. A. Terry
Conceptualapproachesto humanecology.
(Research report / Easi-Wesi Environment and Policy
Institute; no. 14)
Bibliography: p.
I. Human ecology—Philosophy. I.Tiile II.Scries:
Research report [East-West Environment and Policy
[nstitute(Hono)ulu, Hawaii)!; no. l-t.
GF21.R35 1983
304.2
83-16460
ISBN 0-86638-049-3
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
v
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
T H E ORIGINSOF H U M A N ECOLOGY
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINISM
E N V I R O N M E N T A L POSSIBILISM
T H E C O N C E P T O FC U L T U R A L E C O L O G Y
T H EECOSYSTEM-BASED M O D E L OFH U M A N ECOLOGY
T H E ACTOR-BASED M O D E L OFH U M A N ECOLOGY
THE SYSTEMS MODEL OFH U M A N ECOLOGY
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHIC NOTE
REFERENCES
1
1
2
3
4
6
13
18
23
29
31
33
Table
Table 1.
C o m p a r i s o n o f the C u l t u r a l Ecology-ofJ a v a and the O u t e r
Islands of Indonesia
9
Figures
Figure 1. T h e model o f environmental determinism
4
Figure 2. T h e model of environmental possibilism
5
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
© 1983 East-West Center. East-West Environment and PolicyInstitute.
All rightsreserved.
Printed in the UnitedSlatesof America.
T h e model o fcultural ecology
T h e ecosystem-based model of h u m a n ecology
T h e actor-based model o f h u m a n ecology
Social system-ecosystem interactions
?
14
19
26
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
T h i s research report is a revised and expanded version o f my paper, " T h e
Development o f a C o n c e p t u a l Framework for H u m a n Ecology," w h i c h was
issued i n 1979 as W o r k i n g Paper N o . 4 by the Department o f A n t h r o p o l o g y
and Sociology of the U n i v e r s i t y o f M a l a y a . T h e first draft o f the paper was
written i n 1978 while I was a visiting research fellow at the East-West E n v i r o n ment and Policy Institute, H o n o l u l u , H a w a i i . Discussions o f h u m a n ecology
concepts with several E A P I staff members and fellows, particularly W i l l i a m
H . M a t t h e w s , R i c h a r d A . Carpenter, Lawrence S. H a m i l t o n , and A n d r e w P.
V a y d a , greatly helped me to clarify my t h i n k i n g about the several models
described. C o m m e n t s by H a r o l d M c A r t h u r , Peter P r i c e , and Percy E . Sajise
led me to make further revisions i n this presentation.
T h e field research that provided the e m p i r i c a l basis for development o f the
systems model of h u m a n ecology was supported by two successive Southeast
A s i a Research Fellowships awarded by the F o r d F o u n d a t i o n and by several
staff research grants from the U n i v e r s i t y o f M a l a y a . T h e c o n t i n u i n g support
given to this work by Professor Y i p Yat H o o n g , the former deputy vice chancellor for research at the U n i v e r s i t yo f M a l a y a , is gratefully acknowledged.
1
M y intellectual debts i n the field o f h u m a n ecology are m a n y but special
m e n t i o n must be made o f the influence o f E l m a n R . Service, E r i c R . Wolf,
a n d H e n r y T. L e w i s . C o n t i n u i n g discussions with A l i c e G . Dewey, K a r l L .
Hutterer, Jeff R o m m , and N e i l L .J a m i e s o n III have also contributed to the
achievement of such coherence as the t h i n k i n g incorporated i n tKis report may
exhibit.
ConceptualApproachesli>Homait KcoJoiry
)
ConceptualApproaches
to HumanEcology
by
A . Terry Rambo
ABSTRACT
A number o f very different conceptual approaches have been employed i n
h u m a n ecology. T h i s report reviews several o f the most important analytic
frameworks: environmental determinism and possibilism, cultural ecology,
the ecosystem-based m o d e l , and the actor-based model. T h e contributions
made by each conceptual approach to increasing understanding of h u m a n
ecology are described, a n d their strengths and weaknesses are assessed. F i n a l ly, an alternative conceptual approach—the systems model o f h u m a n ecolo g y — i s proposed. In this interactive model, the h u m a n social system is seen as
being linked to its ecosystem through the interchange o fenergy, materials, and
information.
INTRODUCTION
H u m a n ecology, most broadly defined as the study o f h u m a n interactions
with the environment, has in recent years gained greatly increased attention i n all o f the social sciences. Despite this, there appears to be little consensus as to
what h u m a n ecology actually is or should be. In particular, there is c o n t i n u i n g
vigorous discussion about the suitability of a p p l y i n gseveral different theoretical approaches in understanding human-environment interactions.
W h / i e such diversity o f viewpoints within a scientificdisciplinemay indicate
youthful vigor, it also can present the nonspccialist with severe obstacles to
g a i n i n g an understanding o f the overall form and direction o f the field o f
study. T h i s problem is made even more acute by the often polemiccharacter o f
programmatic statements regarding the nature o f h u m a n ecology. M a n y writ-
2
Environment and PolicyInstitute
ers approach theoretical discussions as i fthey are dealing with theology, advocating their o w n models as the only true and correct ones while dismissing
other conceptual approaches as archaic, wrong-headed, or even i m m o r a l .
S u c h out-of-hand dismissal may on occasion be deserved but also tends to
obscure the existence o f legitimate alternative conceptual approaches.
In this report, alternative conceptual models o f h u m a n relations with the
environment are described in the historicalorder i n w h i c h they have appeared
in the scientificliterature. Such a chronologicalapproach helps to illustrate the
interplay between research results and the formulation o f new theoretical concepts. N o superiority is imputed to more recently developed paradigms. In
fact, certain currently popular models may be viewed as regressive from the
standpoint o f the development ofsocial science theory as a whole.
A l t h o u g h largely discredited a m o n g social scientists, classical and early
m o d e r n theories o f environmental influence on h u m a n affairs (determinism
and possibilism)are often employed by historians. M o s t notable o f such historians is A r n o l d J . Toynbee, who advocates a possibilist stance i n his influential
A Study of H i s t o r y .
T h e model of cultural ecology proposed by J u l i a n Steward is still the g u i d ing p a r a d i g m for m a n y investigators, but in recent years it has been challenged by the ecosystem-based model first proposed by A n d r e w P. Vayda a n d
Roy A . Rappaport.
T h e i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g characteristic is the focus o f actor-based
models o f h u m a n ecology, and the systems model o f h u m a n ecology stresses
investigation o f interactions between h u m a n social systems and ecosystems
based on their reciprocalexchange o fenergy, materials, and information.
THE ORIGINS OF HUMAN ECOLOGY
Since ancient limes there have been m a n y attempts to explain events i n
terms o f environmental influences o n h u m a n behavior. Astrology represents
one early system o f thought relating environmental forces to h u m a n actions.
A l t h o u g h wholly discredited as a scientific theory by modern astronomy, the
belief that the movement o f the stars controls h u m a n destiny retains a strong
hold o n the popular i m a g i n a t i o n , as evidenced by the appearance o f astrological advice c o l u m n s i n m a n y daily newspapers.
In a vein more compatible with m o d e r n scientific thought, the ancient
G r e e k philosophers recognized that m a n was both influenced by nature and a
force for change i n the environment. It was suggested, for example, that the
different forms o f political organization o f the G r e e k city states a n d the Eastern empires reflected the influences o f climate on the personalities o f their citi-
ConccpiuaJ Approaches w Human Ecology
zens. T h i s theme later was developed by M o n t e s q u i e u and other French
writers o f the Enlightenment and advocated i n recent times by the A m e r i c a n
geographer Samuel H u n t i n g t o n . O t h e r classical writers commented on the
destruction o f the natural landscape of A t t i c a and N o r t h A f r i c a resulting from
deforestation and o v e r g r a z i n g , a theme taken up i n the mid-1800s by George
P. M a r s h , whose book, M a n a n d N a t u r e , or, P h y s i c a l Geography
as M o d i f i e d by
H u m a n A c t i o n was a precursor of the ecologicalcatastrophe writings so popular
recently. These early writings, however, were generally anecdotal rather than
presenting a coherent theory o f human-environment relationships. It was only
with the development o f geography and anthropology as scientificdisciplines
in the latter part of the nineteenth century that h u m a n ecology became the
subject ofsystematic study. T h e first theoretical approach to be tried, however,
was that of environmental d e t e r m i n i s m — a false start that greatly retarded
subsequent development o f h u m a n ecology.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINISM
A r o u n d the turn o f the century, geographers, notably F r i e d r i c h Ratzel i n
G e r m a n y and his A m e r i c a n disciple, Ellen C . Semple, espoused the view that
h u m a n s were completely the product of their e n v i r o n m e n t , a theory that came
to be called environmental d e t e r m i n i s m . Followerso f this school, which d o m i nated geographical thought well into the 1920s, asserted that all aspects o f
h u m a n culture and behavior were caused directly by environmental influences
( F i g u r e 1). F o r example, the British were a nation o f seafarers because they
were an island-dwelling race surrounded by seas; the A r a b s were monotheistic
M u s l i m s because l i v i n g i n the vast empty desert turned their minds toward a
single G o d ; the E s k i m o s were p r i m i t i v enomads because the harsh conditions o f
their arctic habitat forbade their development into a complex c i v i l i z a t i o n . T h e
books o f Semple and others were filled with endless listings o f seemingly plausible environmental determinants o f cultural forms.
A l t h o u g h seductive when first encountered, such claims o f causal correlation between environment and culture were easily refuted once given careful
consideration. F o r example, the Tasmanians, w h o lived on an island not
unlike the one inhabited by the E n g l i s h , made no ships; the A r a b tribes who
had wandered that vast lonely desert for thousands o f years before the appearance of M u h a m m a d were believers i n a large pantheon of spirits; and the icy
wastes once traversed by E s k i m o d o g sleds are now the scene o f snowmobile
races alongside giant oil pipelines. T h e r e is s i m p l y too m u c h variation in
h u m a n behavior i n seemingly s i m i l a r geographical settings for it t o be environmentally determined.
3
Environment and PolicyInstitute.
4
5
Conceptual Approaches to Human Ecology
0 ^
CULTURAL
CULTURALFORM
TRAITS
MENTAL
1
o"
Figure 1.The model of environmental determinism.
ENVIRONMENTAL POSSIBILISM
In place o f the discredited d e t e r m i n i s m , a new theory, called environmental
possibilism, was proposed. Its proponents asserted that while the environment
did not directly cause specific cultural developments, the presence or absence
of specific environmental factors placed limits on such developments by either
p e r m i t t i n g or forbidding their occurrence (Figure 2). T h u s , island peoples
could be seafarers, but residents o f Inner M o n g o l i a could not be; inhabitants
of temperate regions might practice agriculture, but those l i v i n g in arctic latitudes c o u l d not. T h e value o f the possibilist approach was perhaps best demonstrated by the A m e r i c a n anthropologist A . L . Kroeber, who showed that
the Indians o f northwestern N o r t h A m e r i c a could not adopt maize agriculture
from their southern neighbors because the frost-free g r o w i n g season i n their
region was shorter than the four months required for the maize plants to reach
maturity. T h e i r environment thus limited the ability o f their culture to evolve
in an agricultural d i r e c t i o n .
A possibilist stance was also taken by the British historian A r n o l d Tbynbee
in his m u l t i v o l u m e d A Study of H i s t o r y (1947), i n which he argued that the
development of civilizations could be explained i n terms o f their responses to
e n v i r o n m e n t a l challenges. C u l t u r e s located i n the benign tropics failed to
evolve because they were not sufficiently challenged by their environment;
SCREEN
Figure 2. The model ofenvironmental possibilism.
those in extremely harsh habitats such as the E s k i m o s i n the arctic remained
forever primitive because simply c o p i n g with the demands of their e n v i r o n ment sapped allo f their creative energies. O n l y those cultures in environments
offering sufficient but not excessive challenges had the possibility of progressing to higher stages of c i v i l i z a t i o n .
Possibilism suffers from one o v e r r i d i n g defect as a scientific theory; it lacks
any general predictive or explanatory power since it is able to explain only
why certain developments could not occur i n certain environments. It is
totally unable to predict whether or not they would occur under favorable circumstances. F o r example, the failure o f Eskimos to grow corn is explainable,
but possibilismcannot explain why the English were great seafarers while the
Tasmanians were not. Clearly, the difference in the latter case was due to existence o f very different cultural traditions and bodies o f technological knowledge rather than reflecting environmental influences. In short, as the British
anthropologist D a r y l l Forde concluded i n his book, H a b i t a t , Economy a n d Society
(1934), which was perhaps the last major scientific exploration o fpossibilism,
"between the physicalenvironment and h u m a n activity there is always a m i d dle term, a collection o f specific objectives and values, a body o f knowledge
and belief: i n other words, a cultural pattern."
W i t h this realization, social scientists tended to turn from studying h u m a n
interactions with the environment, preferring instead to focus on the seemingly more profitable study o f the internal structure a n d functioning o f cultural
and social systems. F o l l o w i n g the French sociologist E m i l e D u r k h e i m ' s i n j u n c t i o n that "social facts" could be explained only i n terms of other social
facts, cultural development was explained by the concept o f diffusionism—the
6
Environment and PolicyInstitute
Conceptual Approachesto Human Ecology
historical spread o f traits from one culture to others, without reference being
made to possible environmental influences on the process. It was not until the
1950s that social scientists, acting under the influences o f J u l i a n Steward's
concept o f cultural ecology, again turned serious attention to the study of
h u m a n interactions w i t h the e n v i r o n m e n t .
TRAIT
DIFFUSION
FROM
OTHER
SOCIETIES
Mil
Co
I *
THE CONCEPT OFCULTURAL ECOLOGY
A l t h o u g h his first papers on the subject were published in the early 1930s, it
was not u n t i l the mid-1950s that J u l i a n Steward's concept of cultural ecology
began to exert a significant influence i n A m e r i c a n anthropology. A l t h o u g h he
was trained i n the diffusionist school, Steward's experience o f field work
a m o n g the Shoshone hunters a n d gatherers i n the G r e a t Basin o f N o r t h
A m e r i c a had led h i m to recognize that ecological adaptation had played at
least as significant a role as diffusion i n the formation o f Shoshone culture.
D r a w i n g on the theoretical methods that biological ecologists were then develo p i n g to study the adaptation o f a n i m a l species, i n particular relating specific
organs to specific features o f the e n v i r o n m e n t , Steward attempted to explain
certain structural aspects o f Shoshone culture i n terms o f the resources available i n the impoverished semidesert habitat. In what is still one of the finest
ethnographies ever published, Steward (1938) made a c o n v i n c i n g case that the
low density o f the Shoshone population, its organization into small family
bands with highly dispersed and flexible residence patterns and lack o f territoriality, and the lack o f powerful permanent leaders all reflected the inability o f
Shoshone technology to extract a large and stable supply of food from the
thinly scattered a n d sporadicallyavailable resources o fthe a r i d e n v i r o n m e n t .
It was Steward's view that not all aspects of Shoshone culture could be
explained i n ecological terms—many traits were present as simply the accidental result o f diffusion from neighboring tribes—but that only some elements,
w h i c h he labeled as "the cultural core," had adaptive significance. In particular, he thought technology, economics, population, and social organization
were likely to be part o f the core, although he insisted that it was necessary to
demonstrate this empirically in each case. H e tended to give special emphasis
to the relationship between technology and the environment i n his model o f
cultural ecology(Figure 3).*
*lt is interesting to notethat E. E. Evans-Prifchard,
• leading British social anthropologist, suggested a similar ecological approach at almost the same time as Steward although neither man
appears to havebeeninfluenced by the other'swork. Pritchard (19+0)related the'settlementpatternofthe Nucr pastorialisisof the Sudan to seasonalchangesin resourceavailability. Despitethe
acclaim that his monograph met from his colleagues, Pritchard's ecological approach was not
emulated by themand British socialanthropologistswerenot to becomeinvolvedagain in human
ecologyresearchuntil muchlaterthantheAmericans.
LANGUAGE
ART
VALUES
RELIGION
SOCIOPOLITICAL
SYSTEM
POPULATION
PATTERNS
ECONOMIC
ORGANIZATION
EXPLOITATIVE
TECHNOLOGY
?0
i
o^
ECOLOGICAL
INFLUENCES
Figure 3. The model of cultural ecology.
T h e A m e r i c a n anthropologist Clifford G e e r t z (1968) has applied Steward's
concept o f cultural ecology to e x p l a i n i n gthe great demographic disparity that
exists between J a v a and the outer islands of Indonesia. J a v a is one o f the most
densely populated regions in the w o r l d , with an average density o f480 persons
per square kilometer ( k m ) but with more than 2,000 p e r s o n s / k m i n some
parts of the island. In m a r k e d contrast, most of the outer islands (e.g., S u m a tra, K a l i m a n t a n , T i m o r ) are characterized by densities o f less than 25 pers o n s / k m ' . Geertz has suggested that these various population densities reflect
1
2
B
Environment and PolicyInstitute
the differing agricultural adaptations employed i n the two regions, which i n
turn relate to their differingenvironments (Table I).
T h e topography of J a v a is one o f relatively y o u n g volcanic mountains surrounded by a series o f gently sloping basins, which offer ideal conditions for
construction of irrigated fields. T h e relief o f the geologically older outer islands is generally low and irregular, offering few opportunities for development of large, gravity fed irrigation systems. T h e rivers there also tend to be
slow m o v i n g , capable o f c a r r y i n g only light sediment loads. In J a v a , on the
other hand, the rivers are short and fast m o v i n g , c a r r y i n g large quantities of
nutrient-rich sediments from the fertile y o u n g soilso f the volcanicslopes d o w n
into the paddy fields.
In conformity with these environmental factors, J a v a is predominantly a
region o f s a w a h irrigated wet rice agriculture while l a d a n g shifting cultivation is
the principal technology employed i n the outer islands. L a d a n g , or " s w i d d e n "
agriculture as it is usually called by anthropologists, is a system i n which the
farmer cuts a plot of land in the forest, allows the vegetation to d r y and then
burns it before planting a crop. After one or, at most, two harvests, fertility is
exhausted and the plot is abandoned and a new field is cleared in the forest.
T h e abandoned plot is gradually rcoccupied by forest vegetation, and after ten
to fifty years it may again be cleared and farmed. S w i d d e n i n g represents an
effective adaptation to f a r m i n g the impoverished soils o f tropical rain forest
areas where most o f the available nutrients are stored i n the vegetation, It
gives high yields with relativelylowh u m a n labor inputs since most of the work
is done by the fire, which simultaneously clears the field, releases the stored
nutrients back to the soil i n the form o f ashes where they are readily available
to the g r o w i n g crops, and kills off pests a n d weed seeds that w o u l d compete
with the crops. T h e major l i m i t a t i o n o f swidden agriculture is that a large
quantity o f land is required to support each farmer. A n i n d i v i d u a l farmer
requires not only the plot currently under cultivation but also a reserve o f forest land adequate for the needs o fcultivation until the old plots are again ready
for clearing. S w i d d e n i n g can thus support only populations at densities o f
fewer than 200 p e r s o n s / k m . If population should increase, it is necessary
to shorten the forest fallow cycle, causing r a p i d destruction o f the productive
capability o f the land due to erosion and nutrient loss.
3
In contrast to the impermanence a n d instabilityo f the l a d a n g systems, sawah
agriculture is noted for its stability and durability. O n c e an irrigated paddy
field has been constructed it can be farmed year after year for centuries with
little evident loss i n productivity. T h i s reflects the fact that it is the supply o f
water rather than the quality o f soil that is the most important factor i n growing wet rice. M o r e o v e r , the yield is strongly influenced by the amount of
h u m a n labor put into w o r k i n gthe crop—transplanting rather than sowing the
seed by broadcasting, more careful and frequent weeding, and cleaning and
maintenance o f irrigation channels all contribute to a higher yield o f rice per
10
Environment and I'olicyInstitute
hectare. Such a system may encourage population increase, since the more
children (he parents have, the more hands they have to help work their paddy
field. T h u s , the existence o f these radically different systems o f agriculture,
reflecting different ecological conditions, may contribute to the demographic
disparities between J a v a and the outer islands.
Steward's concept o f cultural ecology has proved to be a powerful and effective strategy for h u m a n ecological research, offering new understanding of
how traditional societies arc effectively adapted to their environments, lis
successes have been achieved p r i m a r i l y in studying small-scale, primitive societies, however, especially those where a stable relationship has been established between a static population and an u n c h a n g i n g environment. T h e
concept has been much less applicable to complex modern societies where
the actions o f large h u m a n populations are p r o d u c i n g rapid environmental
change with consequent need for rcadaptation o f the cultural core. A s conceived by Steward a n d used by others, the cultural ecology model lacks any
systematic conceptualization of the environment or o f the ways in which h u man activities impinge on it. T h u s , its emphasis is almost exclusively on the
h u m a n side of the human-environment equation, focusing on the adaptation
of culture to nature while i g n o r i n g environmental change i n response to h u man intervention.
T h i s fundamental weakness o f the concept of cultural ecology is revealed i n
the work o f M a r v i n H a r r i s , an A m e r i c a n anthropologist who has incorporated
this approach into studies o f what he refers to as " t c c h n o - c n v i r o n m e n i a l determ i n i s m . " O p e r a t i n g under the assumption that the technological means of
adaptation to the environment is the prime mover o f cultural evolution, H a r ris asserts that the forms taken by all other aspects of culture are determined
by the relationship between technology and the environment. In a widely cited
paper, " T h e C u l t u r a l Ecology of India's Sacred C a t t l e " (1966). H a r r i s argues
that, contrary to the accepted view t h a t H i n d u s keep excessive numbers o f
useless cattle because o f their religious belief that cattle are sacred, these cows
are actually extremely important to the economic welfare o f the poor peasants,
helping them to make m a x i m u m use o f the scarce resources o f their e n v i r o n ment. Therefore, he concludes, the religious beliefs must have been caused by
techno-cnvironmental factors.
A c c o r d i n g to the conventional view, between one-third and one-half o f the
80 m i l l i o n cows i n India should be eliminated as economically wasteful animals. Because they arc so badly nourished, not more than one cow i n two
yields any m i l k , and cattle wander freely a r o u n d the landscape, d a m a g i n g
crops and interfering with traffic. In some areas cattle actually compete with
humans for food, being kept i n special bovine old-age care shelters until they
die, since the H i n d u concept o f a h i m s a that regards all life as sacred forbids
their being slaughtered. Hence, it is c o m m o n l y said that this is an example of
Conceptual Approachesto Human Ecology
religious ideology interfering with the efficient ecological adaptation o f a c u l ture.
H a r r i s claims, however, with some justification, that conventional analyses
of the economics of Indian cattle have overlooked numerous benefits thai the
seemingly excess animals provide to the peasant population. First, he reminds
the reader that cows are necessary to produce bullocks, which are the m a i n
draft a n i m a l on Indian farms. It is only by having large numbers of cows that
the d e m a n d of the farmers for bullocks can be met. Second, cows yield a
steady supply of d u n g , and cow d u n g is the main source of fuel for domestic
cooking fires in m u c h of South A s i a . A c c o r d i n g to one estimate, the energy
value o f the 300 m i l l i o n tons of d u n g burned each year i n India is equal to 35
m i l l i o n tons of coal. M u c h o f the rest of the d u n g is used as manure in the
fields. T h e hides salvaged from deceased cows also provide the basis o f a large
leather industry, which provides a livelihood for m a n y lower-casle families.
Not only does H a r r i s show that the cows provide m a n y valuable economic
benefits to the Indian peasants, he also argues that they do so at m i n i m a l cost
to the h u m a n population. H e claims that cows rarely compete directly with
people for food since they are not fed grain or fodder g r o w n on land that could
otherwise grow food for h u m a n c o n s u m p t i o n , as is the case in Western countries. Instead, the cattle wander grazing freely on whatever grass they can find
g r o w i n g beside roads, a r o u n d telephone poles, and between the ties on railroad tracks. T h e y also arc allowed to graze on the stubble left i n grain fields
after the harvest. In other words, the cows capture otherwise unutilized energy
and nutrients i n the e n v i r o n m e n i and convert these into bullocks, m i l k , d u n g ,
and hides—all resources o f great value to the peasants. Therefore, H a r r i s concludes, far from the keeping o f cows being caused by religious irrationality, the
religious tabu on k i l l i n g cattle exists as an expression of the ecologicalvalue o f
cattle to the Indian h u m a n population.
H a r r i s ' paper has been subject to severe criticism on e m p i r i c a land theoretical grounds. It has been pointed out that he tends to overestimate the benefits
that people derive from the cows while understating the costs of keeping such
large herds. In particular, it has been claimed that 5 percent of the arable land
in India is i n fact used as pasture and for g r o w i n g fodder to feed cattle, so these
animals do i n fact compete directly with humans for food. It has also been
argued that a smaller n u m b e r of belter fed animals w o u l d provide the same or
better level of services to the h u m a n population at less economic cost. O n the
theoretical side, it must be recognized that religious tabus on k i l l i n g and cons u m i n g animals arc not necessarily always as adaptive as H a r r i s seems to
think. S u c h practices may, for example, appear to be ecologically rational
when they first evolve, as H a r r i s has asserted to be the case with the M u s l i m
prohibition on eating pork since pigs are poorly adapted to the arid e n v i r o n ment characteristic o f the A r a b i a n peninsula. O n c e i n existence, however, reli-
12
Environment and Policy Institute
gious beliefs may take on a life of their o w n and can be diffused into new environments where they may appear less rational ecologically. T h u s , M u s l i m s in
Indonesia and M a l a y s i a are forbidden by their religion from eating pork
although the pig is ecologically probably the most efficieni meat-producing
a n i m a l that can be raised in the Southeast A s i a n tropics. Pigs are so important
as a source o f protein, i n Borneo the spread o f Islam has been limited to those
areas close to the coast where sufficient supplies offish are available to provide
a substitute for pork. Populations on the interior side of what has been called
the " p i g l i n e " nutritionallycannot afford to become M u s l i m s .
T h e greatest weakness i n H a r r i s ' argument, however, is that i n focusing on
the benefits that i n d i v i d u a l Indian farmers derive from h a v i n g large numbers
of cows, he wholly ignores the destructive impact these animals have on the
environment and the consequent l o w e r i n g o f the land's ability to support the
total h u m a n population at acceptible levels. O v e r g r a z i n g has stripped most o f
the u p l a n d areas o f South A s i a o f vegetative cover, and the barren soil of the
hill slopes has had its structure destroyed by the impact of the cow's hooves
and is highly subject to erosion d u r i n g the brief but intense monsoon rains.
T h e rainwater, which was formerly trapped by tree roots and grasses and then
gradually released p r o v i d i n girrigationwater to farms on the plains below duri n g the g r o w i n g season, now pours d o w n the slopes in sheets, c a r r y i n g away
the topsoil and causing greai floods in the lowlands. T h a i the environmental
degradation in India caused by cows exacts a heavy price in h u m a n hunger
is clearly shown by the results o f an experimental reforestation program at
S u k h o m a j r i in the hills north of C h a n d i g a r . T h e r e , each u p l a n d hectare that
has been replanted a n d protected from g r a z i n g now yields sufficient water to
irrigate two hectares o f good cropland i n the plains d u r i n g the d r y season,
m o r e than d o u b l i n g the supply of food available to the h u m a n population.
A s the previous discussion of the limitations o f the concept o f cultural ecology indicates, research on human-environment relations needs a conceptual
framework that pays adequate attention to the possibility of environmental
change a n d degradation o c c u r r i n g as a consequence o f h u m a n activities. C u l tural adaptation cannot be seen as static, something that is achieved at the
b e g i n n i n g o f a culture's history and then maintained unchanging ever afterw a r d . Instead, the relationship between humans and nature is a d y n a m i c one
i n which both culture and the environment continue to adapt and readapt as
each changes i n response to the other's influence. It was recognition of the
need for a more d y n a m i c model of the environmental side o f the relationship
that Jed to formulation o f the ecosystem-based model o fh u m a n ecology.
Conceptual Approaches to H u m a n Ecology
THE ECOSYSTEM-BASED MODEL OF HUMAN ECOLOGY
Basing their approach on the concept o f the ecologicalsystem that had been
formulated by biological ecologists following W o r l d W a r II, A m e r i c a n anthropologists A n d r e w Vayda and R o y Rappaport suggested that instead o f studyi n g how cultures are adapted to the environment attention should be focused
on the relationship of specific h u m a n populations to specific ecosystems.* In
their view, h u m a n beings constitute simply another population a m o n g the
many populations o f plant a n d animal species thai interact with each other and
with the n o n l i v i n g components (climate, soil, water) of their local ecosystem.
T h u s the ecosystem, rather than the culture, constitutes the fundamental unit
of analysis in their conceptual framework for h u m a n ecology (Figure 4). C u l tural traits arc of interest only as they can be shown to contribute to the population's survival in the context o f the ecosystem.
S u c h a framework, however attractive it might seem for reintegrating human ecology into general ecologicalt h i n k i n g , serves to stand anthropology on
its head by emphasizing the biological survival of populations rather than the
persistence of the sociocultural systems in which these populations participale. C u l t u r a l traits arc studied in terms of the possible contribution they
make to a population's adaptation to its ecosystem rather than as being part of
coherent systems in their o w n right, the traditional concern o f social scieniists.
M o r e o v e r , research following the ecosystem-based model tends to be guided
by the unspoken assumption that ifa cultural trait exists then it must somehow
necessarily serve the adaptive needs of a local population.
T h e ecosystem-based model of h u m a n ecology is exemplified by R o y R a p paport's well-known book. P i g s f o r t h e A n c e s t o r s (1968), in which he attempted
to demonstrate how the religious rituals practiced by the T s e m b a g a tribal
group o f N e w G u i n e a functioned to m a i n t a i n their population in balance with
the available resources o f their environment. R e l i g i o n , an institution that
Steward had largely excluded from his concept o f the ecologically adaptive cultural core, was seen by R a p p a p o r t as playing a key regulatory role in relations
between the T s e m b a g a population and the other components o f their ecosystem.
L i k e m a n y of the tribal groups of the central highlands of N e w G u i n e a , the
T s e m b a g a employ a swidden system o f farming similar to that described by
G e e r t z for the outer islands o f Indonesia. T h e p r i n c i p a l domestic a n i m a l
raised by these N e w G u i n e a tribes is the pig. A c o n t i n u i n g puzzle to anthropologists has been their custom o f slaughtering animals only on ritual occasions, when hundreds o f pigs may be consumed i n only a few days, while the
' A n ecosystem consists of all (he living organisms and nonliving environmental elements (such as
soil, water, and climate) (hat interact with each other within a spatially defined area.
14
Environment and I'olicv Institute
NEIGHBORING
HUMAN POPULATIONS
-
'REGIONAL INTERACTIONS:
TRADE, MARRIAGE.
WARFARE. ETC
HUMAN
POPULATION
ABIOTIC
FACTORS
(SOIL,AIR,
WATER)
PLANTAND
ANIMAL
POPULATIONS
Figure 4. The ecosystem-based modelofhuman ecology.
people go meatless for most of the rest o f the time. F r o m a nutritional standpoint, it w o u l d seem better to slaughter smaller numbers o f animals on a regular basis to ensure more frequent c o n s u m p t i o n o f protein by the h u m a n population. T h e great ritual feasts have therefore often been thought to be an
example ofa maladaptive cultural trait s i m i l a r to the sacred cows of India.
After spending fourteen months l i v i n g a m o n g the T s e m b a g a , Rappaport
concluded that, far from being a maladaptive feature o f their culture, the ritual regulation o f pig k i l l i n g actually functions to better adapt the T s e m b a g a
population to their tropical forest ecosystem. H e asserted that the ritual re-
Cunteptual Approaches in H u m a n Ideology
strictiun o f killing pigs only on certain ceremonial occasions serves to (1) maximize the supply o f protein at times when the T s e m b a g a most need it, and (2)
m a i n t a i n the size of the T s e m b a g a population in balance with available resources.
A c c o r d i n g tu R a p p a p o r t , the T s e m b a g a are able to raise adequate supplies
of carbohydrates i n the form of sweet potatoes, taio, and sugar cane in their
swidden plots, but they are chronicallyshort o f protein, particularly high quality a n i m a l protein, which is necessary to ensure good health and resilience in
the face o f disease and injury. T h e fact that the limited number o f pigs that the
T s e m b a g a are able to raise can be slaughtered only on ritual occasions associated with illness, battle, and the beginning a n d end o f periods o f fighting
may serve therefore to ensure that protein is available i n significant quantities
at precisely those times when it is most needed nutritionally.
Illness, injury, wounds, and fear all place the h u m a n organism under greaicr than usual stress with consequent greater physiologicaldemand for protein,
the basic b u i l d i n g block for bodily tissues. Individuals c o n s u m i n g an inadequate quantity o f protein arc unable lo produce sufficient antibodies to recover
quickly from stress effects and are more likely to die from even m i n o r wounds
or injuries than are better fed i n d i v i d u a l s . Even a temporary increase i n protein intake can produce dramatic recoveries a m o n g such malnourished invalids. T h u s , even though the T s e m b a g a killing of pigs is done for supernatural
reasons to appease evil spirits believed to cause sickness and ensure the help o f
ancestral spirits in fighting, since it occurs at times o f illness and war it may
allow the human population to derive the m a x i m u m nutritional benefit from
the small supply o f a n i m a l protein that their tropical forest ecosystem is capable o fp r o d u c i n g .
R a p p a p o r i not only sees ritual as serving the nutritional best interests o f the
T s e m b a g a population; he further claims the ritual cycle functions to maintain
the population ai a density compatible with the long-term c a r r y i n g capacity o f
the ecosystem by regulating die frequency and intensity with which warfare
occurs. A c c o r d i n g to the cultural ground rules followed by the tribes of the
N e w G u i n e a highlands, war is only permitted d u r i n g certain limited periods,
the beginnings and ends o f which are signaled by great ritual pig feasts. N o
group can go to war, however great the provocation, until a sufficient herd has
been assembled to hold a proper feast. T h u s , the very ability of the T s e m b a g a
to engage in war is determined by their ability to produce pigs, and their ability to raise pigs isdetermined by the overallstate o f their ecosystem.
Warfare o f the sort practiced i n highland N e w G u i n e a until quite recently,
while often more o f a ritual than a real battle, was on occasion quite a bloody
affair with participating groups suffering heavy casualties. W h e n their losses
became unacceptable, the contending sides w o u l d generally declare a truce.
E a c h side w o u l d retreat to its o w n territory for a special ritual i n which v i r t u -
15
16
Environment and Policy Institute
ally all adu.li pigs i n the c o m m u n i t y were slaughtered. Some o f this meat was
eaten by the T s e m b a g a , but most o f it was given to the men from n e i g h b o r i n g
villages who had served as their alliesd u r i n g the fighting.
D u r i n g the truce following the p i g feast, the T s e m b a g a were ritually barred
from engaging i n new fighting. T h e y believed they had not yet repaid their
ancestral spirits for the help given to the l i v i n g d u r i n g the just-concludedr o u n d of fighting and therefore they could not rely on their help again should
new fighting begin. It was only after they held a second, larger festival involving the slaughter o f hundreds of pigs that their debt w o u l d be considered paid
and the ancestral spirits again thought w i l l i n g to help them. A t that point warfare would again be ritually permitted. But h a v i n g slaughtered so m a n y adult
pigs when the truce was declared, the T s e m b a g a w o u l d take m a n y years to
rebuild their herd to sufficient size to hold the second feast. D u r i n g those years
the h u m a n population also had time to r e b u i l d , m a k i n g up for the losses in
warriors it had suffered d u r i n g the previous fighting. O n l y when both the pig
population and the h u m a n p o p u l a t i o n ' h a d achieved sufficient size w o u l d the
ritual cycle allow fighting to resume. R i t u a l , although triggered by the growth
in the size o f the pig herd, thus served to help keep the h u m a n population of
the T s e m b a g a i n balance with the limited c a r r y i n gcapacity o f their ecosystem.
R a p p a p o r t ' s book is widely a d m i r e d for the ingenious way i n which he finds
possible links between such diverse elements as n u t r i t i o n , health, warfare,
population size, pigs, and religious ritual w i t h i n the framework o f the T s e m baga ecosystem. O t h e r researchers have raised serious questions, however,
both e m p i r i c a l and theoretical, about the validity of his analysis. Margaret
M c A r t h u r (1974), a leading A u s t r a l i a n nutritional anthropologist, has shown,
for example, that the T s e m b a g a are the best nourished o f any highland N e w
G u i n e a population yet studied, with an average daily protein intake well i n
excess o f reasonable m i n i m u m daily requirements. She concludes that R a p p a port's assumption that the T s e m b a g a are highly vulnerable to the stress o f i l l ness or injury isapparently unfounded. E v e n i fT s e m b a g a invalidsw o u l d benefit from a greater intake o f protein, R a p p a p o r t presents no hard evidence that
they i n fact receive it from the pigs killed at the c u r i n g rituals, according to
M c A r t h u r . A s she notes, the fact that the sick person receives only the'liver as
his share o f the meat does not suggest ingestion o f any very great quantity o f
protein.
T h e k i l l i n g o f large numbers o f pigs on festival occasions is also shown by
M c A r t h u r to be an extremely inefficient way o f using the limited supplies o f
protein available to the T s e m b a g a . D u r i n g the feasts, people literally gorge
themselves on pork, c o n s u m i n g as m u c h as a k i l o g r a mo f meat in a single day.
Since the h u m a n body cannot store protein i n excess o f its small daily requirement ofabout 50 grams, the bulk of this intake at festival times isnutritionally
wasted, being simply burned as extra calories. C o n t r a r y to Rappaport's analysis, M c A r t h u r concludes the k i l l i n g o f pigs in smaller numbers at more frc-
ConccptuaJ Approaches to H u m a n Ecology
quent intervals w o u l d be more efficient from a nutritional standpoint. S u c h '
regular slaughter would also have greater ecological efficiency since it would
remove pigs from the herd as soon as they reached maturity and ceased to be
efficient converters of vegetable food to protein. T h e n the people w o u l d not
have to support them for m a n y extra unproductive years while w a i t i n g for a
large enough herd to be assembled to hold the ritual feast. F a r from m a x i m i z ing the flow o f energy and nutrients from the ecosystem to the h u m a n population, the ritual regulation o f T s e m b a g a p i g husbandry thus appears to be
highly wasteful and inefficient.
O f course the T s e m b a g a are not concerned with ecological efficiency; they
slaughter pigs for religiousand social reasons and not because they are striving
to ensure the m a x i m u m flow o f protein from the ecosystem to themselves. In
particular, the mass slaughter o f pigs at the end o f a truce is intended to display
the wealth and power o f the tribe to potential friends and enemies alike while
e n s u r i n g the support o f both their ancestoral spirits and their h u m a n allies i n
the next r o u n d o f fighting. T h e mass c o n s u m p t i o n o f pork on these occasions,
however wasteful it may be from a n u t r i t i o n a l standpoint, serves the social
needs o f the T s e m b a g a by p r o m o t i n g the formation of effective alliances with
needed allies i n the c o m i n g war. T h e efficacy o f the ritual slaughter should
therefore be assessed, not as Rappaport has done i n terms of the interaction o f
the T s e m b a g a population with their local ecosystem, but-in terms of the adaptation o f the tribal society to the conflict-ridden social environment o f the N e w
G u i n e a highlands.
F r o m the latter perspective, it is particularly ironic that the T s e m b a g a had
fallen v i c t i m to the forces of their larger social environment, h a v i n g been
defeated i n battle i n 1953, driven off their ancestral lands, and forced to take
refuge a m o n g their allies. A s Rappaport himself reports, "the T s e m b a g a
ceased to exist as a group after their defeat, a n d , ifit were not for the agents of
the newly arrived A u s t r a l i a n government who offered to protect them, it is
unlikely that they w o u l d as a group have returned to their territory" (1968).
S u c h a group hardly seems an appropriate choice to illustrate a theory of the
role that ritual plays i n m a i n t a i n i n g homeostatic balance between a local
h u m a n population and its ecosystem. To the extent that balance is m a i n t a i n e d ,
it w o u l d appear to be between h u m a n society i n the highlands as a whole and
the regional ecosystem, not between transitory local populations like the
T s e m b a g a and the small territories they exploitdirectly.
Despite the m a n y serious criticismso f Rappaport's study, it remains a valuable contribution to h u m a n ecology. Perhaps its greatest impact has been to
focus attention on the adaptive significance or ideology, an aspect of culture
that Steward had largely excluded from consideration as affecting h u m a n
interactions with the environment. B y suggesting plausible ways in which religious ritual might regulate T s e m b a g a relations with other components of their
ecosystem R a p p a p o r t opened the eyes of social scientists concerned with ccol-
17
18
Environment ami Polity Institute
ogy to a new area o f study. That his particular model of the interactions
between r i t u a l , h u m a n population, and other ecosystem components may not
be a valid one is a reflection on the specific conceptual approach that he
employed, not a rejection of his more fundamental insight that religious ritual
could be just as significant ecologically as the technological aspects o f culture
that Steward emphasized.
Conceptual Approaches to H u m a n Ecology
CHOOSES
19
ADAPTIVE
INDIVIDUAL
T h e professional debates that followed publication o f Rappaport's book also
have focused attention on what remains the greatest theoretical problem i n
h u m a n ecological studies—that o f identification of the unit o f h u m a n adaptation to the environment. W h i l e some critics, of w h o m the present author is
one, feel R a p p a p o r t erred i n t h i n k i n g too small and focusing on a local population rather than the larger social system of the highlands as his unit o f analysis, others take the position that adaptation occurs p r i m a r i l y at the level of die
i n d i v i d u a l rather than at the level o f groups, populations, or social systems. It
is o n the basis o f the latter convictionthat what has been called the actor-based
model of h u m a n ecology has been formulated.
SUCCESS
ENVIRONMENTAL
SELECTIVEFORCES
THE ACTOR-BASED MODEL OF HUMAN ECOLOGY
In the face ofsevere e m p i r i c a lproblems in defining the social unit ofecological adaptation, it has been suggested that adaptation occurs at the level of
individuals rather than of cultures or populations. T h i s actor-based model o f
h u m a n ecology, as O r l o v e (1980) has labeled it, has become the major new
wave i n h u m a n ecology. T h e model reflects both anthropologists' general concern with i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g processes and evolutionary biologists'
current preoccupation with showing that natural selection operatesexclusively
at the level o f the individual o r g a n i s m . F r o m this perspective, any higher
levels o f organization, whether c o m m u n i t i e s , ecosystems, or h u m a n social systems, exist only as the fortuitous outcome of interactions a m o n g many i n d i vidual organisms.
In the case of h u m a n society, therefore, environmental adaptation is seen as
o c c u r r i n g not as the result o f natural selection on the cultural or social system
level but rather as the result of the outcome of thousands of i n d i v i d u a l decisions about how best to interact with the environment. Individuals are assumed to be m a k i n g choices constantly about how to exploit available resources while c o p i n g with environmental hazards. Those who make the
" c o r r e c t " choices will survive and prosper; those who choose less wisely will be
selected against. O v e r time, the more successful adaptive strategics will become institutionalized as cultural norms. S u c h n o r m s , however, are no more
than the statistical outcome of i n d i v i d u a l choices a n d have no independent
reality o f their o w n as has been the usual conception o f social scientists ( F i g ure 5).
4>
ADAPTIVE
STRATEGY
B
INDIVIDUAL
B
FAILURE
F i g u r e 5. T h e a c t o r - b a s e d m o d e l o f h u m a n ecology.
For example, an actor-based analysis o f the T s e m b a g a might explain the ritual cycle o f p i g k i l l i n g described by Rappaport as simply the accidental outcome o f hundreds o f separate decisions by i n d i v i d u a l tribesmen about how to
best m a x i m i z e the use o f the limited resources available i n order to achieve
power and prestige w i t h i n their society. T h u s , while the success o f the feast
from the societal viewpoint is measured by the total n u m b e r o f pigs that are
sacrificed, the status o f each i n d i v i d u a l T s e m b a g a male is enhanced only in
direct relationship to the number o f pigs that he contributes. T h e larger the
n u m b e r o f animals he can k i l l , the greater the number o f guests he can entertain and the larger the portions o f meat he is able to present to his guests, thus
placing them under greater obligation to assist h i m i n the future. Each T s e m baga male therefore will seek to b u i l d up the largest herd that his family's labor
force can support. O n l y when he reaches that limit will he want to hold the
feast and only when a sufficient n u m b e r o f men have achieved the desired
n u m b e r o f pigs will the c o m m u n i t y as a whole agree that it is time for the cerem o n i a l slaughter. It may be, as R a p p a p o r t claims, that this happens before the
20
Environment and Policy Institute
c a r r y i n g capacity o f the ecosystem is exceeded and its future productivity
degraded but, from the perspective of the actor-based model o f decision making, this happy result is no more than the summed outcome of m a n y separate
i n d i v i d u a l decisions.
T h e actor-based m o d e l , with its emphasis on the processes by which people
make decisions about how to interact with their e n v i r o n m e n t , is a valuable
approach for understanding how change occurs in social systems in response
to environmental perturbations. T h e approach is particularly useful for the
insight it gives into why traditional farmers accept or reject agricultural innovations. A study by M i c h a e l M o c r m a n (1968) has, for example, helped to
explain why peasant rice farmers in northern T h a i l a n d have adopted tractors
under certain environmental circumstances while they continue to rely on
water buffalo under other circumstances. Similarly, M i c h a e l C a l a v a n (1977)
has shown how willingness of T h a i farmers to plant i m p r o v e d rice varieties
reflects rational consideration o fenvironmental forces affecting crop yields.
These and other studies of i n d i v i d u a l decision m a k i n g have shown convincingly that A s i a n peasants arc far from being the tradition-bound creatures of
the economic development textbooks. Instead, they are shown to be highly
rational d e c i s i o n makers who carefully assess agricultural innovations in terms
of potential benefits and costs. Despite their promise o f higher yields, " m o d e r n " c r o p p i n g methods are often rejected because such innovations may require high inputs o f fertilizer, pesticides, and water. These inputs are unavailable to the poorer farmers, and modern c r o p p i n g methods are also m u c h more
vulnerable to environmental hazards such as floods, droughts, and insect and
disease outbreaks.
Poor m a r g i n a l farmers, who arc barely able to eke out a l i v i n g with existing
technology, simply cannot afford to take the greater risks of failure associated
with innovative means o f production. R a t h e r than take b i g risks to m a x i m i z e
income, the farmer who has only I hectare (ha) or less o f land must always
seek to m i n i m i z e risks. F o r h i m it is better to obtain a harvest o f 1,000 kilograms o f padi every year without fail than it is to harvest 3,000 kilograms in
favorable years and nothing i n years when environmental conditions are less
favorable. F r o m this perspective, it is easy to understand why Vietnamese
peasants from the R e d R i v e r D e l t a , who were notoriously conservative i n
their f a r m i n g methods there, proved 1 0 be extremely receptive to agricultural innovations after their resettlement i n the M e k o n g Delta i n 1955. These
peasants had not miraculously become more " r a t i o n a l " and less " t r a d i t i o n b o u n d " simply by m o v i n g from north to south; they had increased their average landholdings from .1 ha to 5 ha per family. T h e y could now afford to take
the risks o f experimenting on part o f their land with " m i r a c l e r i c e " from the
International R i c e Research Institute ( I R R I ) , with fertilizers, insecticides,
and even tractors, because failure no longer meant starvation. U n d e r new
21
Conceptual Approaches to H u m a n Ecology
environmental conditions, these formerly conservative peasants quickly became a m o n g the most innovative farmers inV i e t n a m .
A l t h o u g h the actor-based model o f h u m a n ecology has been usefully c m ployed in e x p l a i n i n g peasant choices about environmental relations, it relies
upon a set o f questionable assumptions about h u m a n s and society. T h e fact
that T h a i peasants are capable of choosing which o f two rice varieties will give
o p t i m u m yields under local environmental conditions cannot be taken as evidence that humans in general always or even usually make correct decisions
about their interactions with the environment. In its assumption that humans
always behave rationally, the actor-based model bears many resemblances to
the "free-market" model of the classical economists who conceived of countless independent i n d i v i d u a l decisions to buy or sell as operating to produce
optimal prices i n any particular supply and demand situation. M o d e r n economists have largely abandoned this free-market m o d e l , aware as they are o f the
imperfections o f consumer knowledge and the deliberate manipulations by
monopolistic corporate bodies, which distort the free market. Advocates o f the
actor-based model o f h u m a n ecology, however, appear to be e m b r a c i n g uncritically such an " A d a m S m i t h " conceptual approach with the implicit assumption (hat i n d i v i d u a l farmers normally make their decisions in an ecologically
rational way. A n d r e w V a y d a (Vayda and M c C o y , 1975), in particular, h a v i n g
disavowed his earlier theoretical view that it is local populations that are
adapted to ecosystems, now appears to take the position that individualsi n traditional societies generally make " c o r r e c t " decisions about the use o f natural
resources so that the sum o f these decisions promotes stable e n v i r o n m e n t a l
relationships.
W h i l e no anthropologist doubts that traditional peoples often have accurate
and detailed environmental knowledge, which can allow them to make rational decisions about resource use and c o p i n g with natural hazards, it must be
strongly emphasized that there is no inherent requirement that such an end
will result. In m a n y situations, such as "the tragedy ol the c o m m o n s " described by G a r r i u H a r d i n (1968), the summed effect o f i n d i v i d u a l decisions,
all o f which are rational from the perspective of each actor, is to destroy the
c a r r y i n g capacity o f the e n v i r o n m e n t , thus l o w e r i n g the welfare of the whole
community*
"The tragedy of the commons refers to a situation where a number of individuals share unlimited
access to a limited dcgraduble. resource such as a communal pasture. It is in each individual's
short-term self-interest to graze as many animals as possible on the pasture, thus ensuring personal maximum gains. This quickly leads to overgrazing, which, if continued unchecked, results
in the degradation of productivity of the pasture, as lias occurred in much of India. Everyone
loses, but those individuals who keep the most animals on the deteriorating range s(ill maximize
(heir share of the declining communal resource so that overgrazing is likely to continue until
pasture is destroyed. Such a process can be observed currently in many upland areas in Asia.
the
•n
Environment and Policy Institute
It is not even valid 1 0 assume that i n d i v i d u a l salways make rational adaptive
choices in terms o f their short-run self-interest. Recent w o r l d history provides
abundant examples o f people m a k i n g w r o n g choices for their o w n survival,
H o w , for example, is it possible for anyone lo assert that humans are rational
decision makers i n the face of evidence that d u r i n g W o r l d W a r II several m i l lion Jews in Europe went q u i c d y and w i t h virtually no resistance to the N a z i
extermination camps? W h e n the Secret Police (SS) or Gestapo knocked at the
door each o f these individuals made the decision to accept fate and go along
peacefully—a w r o n g decision that repealed millions of times resulted i n the
near extermination o f a people. G i v e n the o v e r w h e l m i n g m i l i t a r y power possessed by the N a z i s , it might have made no difference to the ultimate outcome
if the J e w s had decided to resist, as they finally d i d in the Warsaw Ghetto
uprising, but it is a fact that such resistance was never even considered because
use o f physical force was not condoned by J e w i s h culture as it had evolved i n
the ghettos of E u r o p e . T h e " g o o d m a n " was one who was peaceful and
a c c o m m o d a t i n g i n the face o f force, not one who was violent and offered resistance to authority. Since individuals must make decisions w i t h i n the context
of their particular culture, all choices arc ultimately value statements—the
expression o f a preference for one way of life over another. Such values are,
however, a property o fthe social system, not o f the i n d i v i d u a l actors within the
system.
A n i n d i v i d u a l T s e m b a g a tries to raise the largest possible p i g herd, not
because that is the o p t i m u m strategy for adapting to the N e w G u i n e a e n v i r o n ment but because that is the way in which he can gain status within T s e m b a g a
society; a T h a i farmer chooses to grow rice variety A instead of rice variety B
because he believes that it will give h i m a higher yield from his land and a
higher yield will allow h i m to live in the style that T h a i culture considers good.
T h e i r decisions may o r may not be correct ones within the context o ftheir cultural values, but they as individuals d i d not create these values. Instead, the
values arc a pre-existing aspect of the social systems into which these i n d i v i d u als were b o r n . A s children they were socialized to accept these values as correct, and as adults they make their choices about interactions with the environment in terms o f those values. T h e T h a i farmer does not try to accumulate a
large herd o f pigs and the T s e m b a g a people do not try to raise a rice crop,
however suitable such a strategy might be from an ecological standpoint,
because such decisions arc not even options with the frameworks of their
respective cultures.
A T s e m b a g a is concerned with raising pigs and a T h a i with growing padi
not because o f any choice made by these individualsbut because iheir respective cultures channel their interests in these directions. Both ihe nature o f the
game and the rules by which it is played are set by the social system, with the
i n d i v i d u a l actor being able only to choose his specific moves. T h u s , the T s e m baga may strive to raise a larger or smaller herd o f pigs and the T h a i may
Conceptual Approaches10 H u m a n Ecology
plant miracle rice seed instead o f the traditional variety—the social systems
" a l l o w " the individual that much freedom of choice. Rut the larger issues o f
life are not matters o f choice. H a m l e t may agonize about being and n o n b e i n g ,
but most individuals s i m p l y accept their existence w i t h i n an o n g o i n g social
system as given. T h e y may try 1 0 better their situation, but they normally do
not seek to rewrite the fundamental rules o f the game as they are prescribed by
their culture.
T h e actor-based model o f h u m a n ecology isthus one of limitedapplicability.
It can reveal a great deal about why individualsw i t h i n a particular social system make the particular choices about interactions with the environment that
they do, but ii cannot explain why their social system presents them with the
particular choices it does. A n explanation of the character of a social system as
a system cannot be achieved by looking al ihe characteristics of the individuals
thai compose the social system. Instead, it is necessary to focus on the characteristics unique 1 0the higher order system itself as it interacts with its e n v i r o n ment. T h i s approach iscalledthe systems model o f h u m a n ecology.
THE SYSTEMSMODEL OF HUMAN ECOLOGY
A major scientific development i n recent years has been the formulation o f
"general systems theory," which is concerned with the general properties o f the
structures and functions o f systems as such, rather than with their specificcontents. A c c o r d i n g to this iheoretical approach, atoms, cells, organisms, ecosystems, societies, and even the universe as a whole all share the c o m m o n propertics of being self-organizingsystems and can iherefore be studied in terms o f a
c o m m o n theoretical perspective, Biological ecologists have long been aware of
the systemic qualities o f the natural w o r l d , as their use o fthe t e r m
ecosystem
reveals. A m o n g social scientists, the recognition that h u m a n societies constitute organized systems is also an old one, dating back at least to the work of the
French sociologist E m i l e D u r k h c i m . H i s writings, particularly The E l e m e n t a r y
F o r m s of R e l i g i o u s Life (1915), provided ihe basis for the development of the
structural-functional social systems model that has been the dominant parad i g m of British and A m e r i c a n anthropology and sociologysince the 1930s.
Structural-functionalism, as first theoretically articulated by A . R . R a d cliffe-Brown (1965) and Bronislaw M a l i n o w s k i (1922), and as developed empirically by E . E . E v a n s - P r i t c h a r d (1940) and especially S i r R a y m o n d Firth
(1936), saw allo f the diverse instiiuiions o f society as being organized into an
integrated system, where each institution fits harmoniously with every other
one, and where change in any single institution would ramify into complementary change i n all o f the other institutions with which it was functionally
connected.
T h e structural-functional model, with its conception o f societies as systems.
23
24
Environment and Policy Institute
proved to be o f great value operationally, producing many new insights into
the ways in which societies were organized. N u m e r o u s formerly inexplicable
customs suddenly became intelligible in the light of their functional relations
with other institutions. T h e payment o f " b r i d e p r i c e " in tribal societies, for
example, became comprehensible when ii was perceived that it served to
strengthen marriage bonds by m a k i n g divorce more difficult and that such
strengthening was important since marriages served politically to unite otherwise autonomous clans. T h u s , what had earlier been perceived as a quaint,
"savage" custom was now recognized as serving important functions in the
maintenance of tribal social solidarity.
T h e ethnographic works o f the structural-functionalists give many more
examples o f such functional relationships. To read E v a n s - P r i i c h a r d ' s monograph on the N u e r o f the S u d a n (J940) or R a y m o n d Firth's several works
(1936) on the T i k o p i a n s o f Polynesia is to gain a strong conviction that these
societies were integrated systems. C e r t a i n l y most Western social scientists
became convinced o f this and thus the structural-functional model rapidly
became the dominant theoretical perspective i n anthropology and sociology.
Soon, however, criticisms began to be heard that the structural-functional
model was a static one, unable to explain the occurrence o f change within the
social system.* If, as the theory asserted, every institution was integrated perfectly with every other institution, what force could cause change to occur?
T h e problem with the social system concept as developed by the structuralfunctionalists was not their postulation o f integration a m o n g system components but their failure to conceive o f the system as an open one. F o l l o w i n g the
lead of D u r k h e i m (1938), it was argued that "social facts" must be explained
only i n terms of other "social facts"; one could not seek the causes o f social
change outside the boundaries of the social system itself. T h i s l i m i t a t i o no f the
field of i n q u i r y — o r i g i n a l l y conceived as a way to prevent the resort to reductionist psychological o r physiological explanations of social systems such as
" e x p l a i n i n g " the development of N a z i G e r m a n y in terms o f H i t l e r ' s pathological personality or " e x p l a i n i n g " the incest tabu i n terms o f man's instinctual
h o r r o r of interbreeding—became an obstacle to understanding the process of
systems change. T h e development of h u m a n ecology can be seen as an attempt
to escape this theoretical impasse by treating social systems as open rather
than closed systems. B e g i n n i n gwith J u l i a n Steward's concepi.of cultural ecology (1955, 1968), it was recognized that "social facts" might be explained not
only i n terms of other "social facts" but also i n terms o f "ecological facts."
*Acccptancc of the view that social institutions have a tendency toward integration need not imply
acceptance of the view that social systems arc naturally homeosiaiic and stable. T h e Marxist conceptual model, lor example, certainly recognizes the role played by conflict in social evolution yet
at the same lime holds that technology, social and political institutions, and ideology arc highly
integrated phenomena at any particular stage ofeconomic growth.
Conceptual Approaches to H u m a n Ecology
Unfortunately, the new enthusiasm for e x p l a i n i n g social and cultural institutions in terms of environmental influences caused some analysts to lose
sight of the systemic character o f society. Rather than seeking to understand
how one open system (the social system) interacted with another open system
(the ecosystem), they focused their attention on t r y i n g to explain how particular institutions (e.g., sacred cows, p i g feasts) might be explained i n relation to
particular environmental conditions. T h a t this research strategy produced
valuable insights is without question, but it could not lead to a comprehensive
understanding o f society-environment interactions.
A n alternative approach, the "systems model o f h u m a n ecology," describes
social systems as they interact with ecologicalsystems. Adaptation is assumed
to occur, not at the level o f discrete cultural traits or social institutions—as in
the model of cultural ecology—or in terms of specific h u m a n populations—as
in the ecosystem-based model o f h u m a n ecology—or in terms o f specific i n d i vidual decision makers—as in the actor-based model o f h u m a n ecology—but
at the level o f the total social system as a system. C u l t u r a l trails, therefore, do
not necessarily function to ensure the welfare o feither individualsor local populations but instead serve p r i m a r i l y to ensure the survival o f the social system
itself. F r o m this perspective, the ritually regulated warfare of the T s e m b a g a is
not seen as directly benefiting either most i n d i v i d u a l T s e m b a g a or the T s e m baga local population as a whole. In just one battle eighteen died and the people were defeated and driven from their territory, hardly what can be labeled
an adaptive outcome either for the i n d i v i d u a l casualties or the dispossessed
survivors. Instead, such endemic conflict is considered essential for m a i n taining the type o f social system characteristic o f the N e w G u i n e a highlands.
Individuals, or even the whole T s e m b a g a local population could be destroyed,
but the larger social system endured.
In the systems model o f h u m a n ecology both the social system and the ecosystem with which it interacts retain their integrity as systems, with each
c h a n g i n g its structural configuration according to its internal d y n a m i c s . A t the
same time, however, it is recognized that each system receives energy, mater i a l , and information from the other, and these inputs also influence its structure a n d functioning. Each system, o f course, is also open to influence from
other systems o f the same k i n d so that a social system may be altered by inputs
received from a neighboring social system (the processes anthropologists call
diffusion and acculturation) just as an ecosystem may be changed by inputs
from other ecosystems (e.g., migration and colonization).C a u s a l i t y i n the systems model o f h u m a n ecology is thus extremely complex with no primacy
being assigned a p r i o r i to any element or force in the total system. Figure 6 is a
simplified d i a g r a m of the basic structural and functional relationships i n volved in the systems model of h u m a n ecology. T h i s model emphasizes four
relational aspects:
25
26
Environment and rohcv Insiuuu
Conccplual Approaches to H u m a n Ei nlnijy
1. Inputs from the ecosystem into the social system—These inputs can be
in the form of flows o f energy (e.g., food, petroleum), materials (e.g.,
protein, construction materials), or information (e.g., sounds, visual
stimuli).
2. Inputs from the social system into the ecosystem—Again, these can take
the form o f flows o f energy, materials, or information generated by human activities.
3. C h a n g e i n the institutions m a k i n g up the social system in response to
inputs from the ecosystem—Such change may be either primary, as when
an increase in the death rate due to environmentally transmitted diseases
changes the population structure o fa society, or secondary, as other social
system institutions change in response to environmentally generated primary change i n one institution. Social system changes i n response to
inputs from the ecosystem may be and often are adaptive, that is, they
contribute to the c o n t i n u i n g survival o f the social system under changed
e n v i r o n m e n t a l conditions. T h e y need not, however, result in a better or
happier way o f life for individual h u m a n participants. In other words, it
is the social system itself, rather than the people who are involved i n it,
that is the unit o fnatural selection and adaptation.
LU
CO
IN
00
o
s 39
4i
uJ
0
4. C h a n g e s i n the ecosystem in response to inputs from the social system—
Just as h u m a n society changes i n response to environmental influences,
so docs the ecosystem change in response to h u m a n influences. S u c h
change m a y be either primary, the direct impact o f a h u m a n activity o n
an ecosystem component such as the k i l l i n g offo fa particular a n i m a l species by o v c r h u n t i n g , or secondary, alterations in other ecosystem components caused by anthropogenic p r i m a r y change i n one component.
LU
OH
Hi
LUO
it/
0
00
CP
5?
<
LU
CO
CO CO
en
so
A s a brief and somewhat hypothetical example of how the systems model of
\ h u m a n ecology works, the problem o f deforestation i n South A s i a may be
e x a m i n e d . In recent years hill slopes in northern India have been deforested
(ecosystems change) by overgrazing by animals and by cutting of trees and
bushes by people for domestic c o o k i n gfuel. T h i s has resulted in a severe shortage o f fuel (flow of energy from the ecosystem to the social system). Peasant
households have responded to this energy crisisby using their children to scavenge any available twigs, agricultural litter, and especially, cow d u n g (change
in resource exploitation pattern). T h i s activityenhances the economic value of
children to the household, leading parents to have more children (change in
population). Consequent increased population results i n increased h u m a n
pressure on the productivityo fthe ecosystem. Intensive collection o fcow d u n g
(flow o f energy and material from the ecosystem to the social system) has,
however, reduced the supply of manure i n the farm fields (change in soil component of the ecosystem) with consequent l o w e r i n g o f crop yields (change in
plant component o f the ecosystem). Y i e l d s have been reduced further by the
27
28
Environment am! Policy Institute
decreased dry-season flow o f irrigation water from the deforested hills and the
clogging of irrigation canals by soil eroded from the denuded hill slopes (seco n d a r y changes i n ecosystem components). These reduced yields are reflected
in a decreased flow o f food energy and materials to the h u m a n population with
consequent negative consequences for nutritional status and health (changes
w i t h i n social system institutions).
Tf government extension agents introduce biogas generators (change i n
technology o f the social system resulting from diffusion f r o m another social
system), concentrated organic residues are again available for use as manure
in the fields (change i n flow o f material from the social system to the ecosystem) w i t h a consequent increase i n crop yields (change i n plant component of
the ecosystem). T h e solution o f the domestic fuel problem could lead to reduced fuel collection in the uplands (change i n flow of energy from the ecosystem to the social system), which allows regeneration of vegetative cover,
resulting i n better water and soil retention (changes in the ecosystem), which
improves the supply o f irrigation water to the fields leading to increased supply
of foods for the peasants, and so o n .
W h e t h e r or not such ecologicalbenefits actually are obtained from introduction o f the new technology, however, will be strongly influenced by social
structural factors. If biogas plants arc sold to i n d i v i d u a l households, only the
wealthier peasant families will be able to afford them. Poorer peasants are
likely to end up collecting d u n g to sell to the biogas plant owners for cash. T h e
biogas plant owners will thus gain differential control of both energy and fertilizer supplies with consequent w i d e n i n g o f the gap between well-off and poorer
farmers i n the village. M o r e reliable supplies o f irrigation water also are likely
to benefit differentially the owners o f larger plots l y i n g w i t h i n the c o m m a n d
area, again serving to increase economic inequality w i t h i n ihe c o m m u n i t y
Poorer households, h a v i n g no vested interest in m a i n t a i n i n g the renewed
watershed, may even deliberately seek to sabotage the w o r k i n g o f the irrigation system. T h i s has i n fact happened i n the case o f (he C h a n d i g a r project
referred to previously.
T h e point o fthis discussion isthat the relationship between the social system
and the ecosystem is both complex and d y n a m i c . T h e virtue o f the systems
model o f h u m a n ecology is that it focuses attention on the processes of change
a n d adaptation rather than emphasizes the sialic structural characteristics o f
the social and ecological systems. M o r e o v e r , this approach avoids any necessity for specification o f any universal " p r i m e m o v e r " for change: neither environmental nor social factors have any a p r i o r i primacy because impulses for
change may flow in either direction. T h e systems model therefore overcomes
to a large extent the limitationso f the model o f cultural ecology with its lack of
provision for dealing with environmental change caused by h u m a n activity
T h e systems model also, by its careful specification o f the parameters o f the
social and ecological systems as integral independent systems, avoids many of
Conceptual Approaches10 H u m a n Ecology
ihe boundary definition problems inherent in the ecosystem-based model o f
h u m a n ecology.
T h e r e is no inherent c o n t r a d i c t i o n between the systems model and the
actor-based model o f h u m a n ecology. T h e latter approach is simplyone a m o n g
many that can be incorporated w i t h i n the larger social systems framework.
Certainly, decision m a k i n g by individual participants affects both the character o f the social system and its interactions with (he ecosystem, but, as has
already been discussed, all such decisions are made w i t h i n the context o f these
systems.
Perhaps the greatest virtue o f (he systems model o f h u m a n ecology is that it
offers specific guidelines for d o i n g research on h u m a n interactions with the
environment. Rather than simply slatting with the idea that environmental
influences must somehow affect humans or that h u m a n actions must somehow
influence the e n v i r o n m e n t , it focuses attention on the .significant areas of
interaction between h u m a n social systems and ecological systems—the flow
and c o u n i e r l l o w of energy, material, and information. S u c h specification provides an essential framework for c a r r y i n g out comparative research. L a c k i n g
such a systematic m o d e l , h u m a n ecology can continue to produce only the sort
of n d h o c results that have essentially characterized the field to date.
CONCLUSION
It must be emphasised that while ihe systems model provides a framework
for analysis of h u m a n interactions with the environment, it is not intended to
be and should never be used as an operational research model. T h a t is, no
investigator should simply use the model as ihe basis for m a k i n g a holistic
description ofany specific c o m m u n i t y ' s inieraciions with iis ecosystem. Such a
total description would be as useless as it would be undoable in practice given
the immense comple.xily o feven the simplest social and ecological systems.
Instead ofdescribing systems for description's sake, it is much more rewarding to siart work with a specific problem as the focus of the research.* To
return 1 0 the earlier example of deforestation in India, one could ask: " W h y
do Indian peasants cut d o w n too many trees?" O n e could equally well start
with the question of: " H o w can soil fertility be restored?" or " H o w can the
supply of irrigation water be increased?" or " W h a t are the likely social and
ecological impacts of i n t r o d u c i n g biogas generators to rural c o m m u n i t i e s ? "
T h e choice of the question is likely to reflect the initial problem orientation of
the investigator (e.g., the forester will probably initially be concerned with the
' C a r o l Colfcr anil Andrew Vayda have recently advocated use of a problem-onerifed rather than a
cominunity-iiricntcd approach in human ecology research, referring to this .strategy as '•contextual analysis" (Colfcr 1981).
29
Environment and Policy Institute
cutting o f trees). E m p l o y i n g the systems model as the research framework,
however, may help h i m to perceive that the solution to his problem may lie
outside the boundaries of the forest, r e q u i r i n g the provision o f alternative
sources o fenergy to the villagersbefore reforestation may be feasible.
T h e real value o f h u m a n ecology lies i n helping humans to see previously
unrecognized relationships between what people do and the environment i n
which they do it. M a n y important insights have already been p r o v i d e d ,
changing i n profound ways how people think about the world and their place
w i t h i n it. Systematic research on h u m a n ecology has only really just begun,
however, and areas o f ignorance far exceed areas o f understanding. But that is
why the field is such an intellectuallyexcitingone i n which to work.
Conceptual Approaches to H u m a n Ecology
BIBLIOGRAPHIC NOTE
Useful reviews of the development of h u m a n ecology as a field are provided
by A n d e r s o n (1973), Bates (1953), Bennett (1976), G r o s s m a n (1977), H e l m
(1962), N e t t i n g (1971, 1977), O r l o v e (1980), Sahlins (1964), V a y d a and R a p paport (1968), and Y o u n g ( l 9 7 4 ) .
Prescicntific period thought on human-nature relations is described by
T h o m a s (1925). E n v i r o n m e n t a l determinism is expounded by Semple (1911),
while the theory is critically reviewed by Piatt (1948) and Sprout and Sprout
(1965). C . D a r y l l F o r d (1934) provided the most detailed presentation of the
possibilist approach. T h e example of the distribution o f maize agriculture i n
N o r t h A m e r i c a being limited by climate is from A . L . K r o e b e r ' s m o n u m e n t a l
C u l t u r a l a n d N a t u r a l A reas of N a t i v e N o r t h Am e r i c a (1939).
T h e articles collected in Steward (1955), particularly C h a p t e r 2, " T h e C o n cept and M e t h o d o f C u l t u r a l Ecology," as well as his later article (1968), offer
clear statements o f the model ofcultural ecology. Steward's m o n o g r a p h , B a s i n P l a t e a u A b o r i g i n a l S o c i o - p o l i t i c a l G r o u p s (1938), remains one of the best examples
of the empirical application o f this model. Evans-Pritchard's m o n o g r a p h on
the N u e r ( 1 9 4 0 ) represents a parallel, but independent, effort. Geertz (1963)
applies the cultural ecologicalapproach to analysis of Indonesian agriculture.
T h e sacred cows of India are discussed from the standpoint ofcultural ecology
by M a r v i n H a r r i s (1966, 1975), and O d e n d ' h a l ' s e m p i r i c a lstudy (1972) o f the
energetics o f Indian cattle supports H a r r i s ' view that they efficiently convert
environmental resources into forms useful to m a n . R . O . W h y t e (1968) offers
a m u c h less favorable assessment o f the role o f cattle in I n d i a . Diencr, N o n i n i ,
and R o b k i n (1978) document the extensive ecological degradation resulting
from overgrazing. T h e existence o f the " p i g l i n e " as a bar to the spread o f
Islam in Borneo is reported by J . M . Bolton (1972). Information on the effects of reforestation at C h a n d i g a r on irrigation water supplies was provided
by P. R . M i s h r a i n personal c o m m u n i c a t i o n . T h e C h a n d i g a r project is described in detail in a paper by D a v i d Seckler (1979).
T h e ecosystem-based model was formulated by A . P. V a y d a and R . A .
Rappaport (1968) under the label of "general ecology." Rappaport (1968,
1971) presents additional theoretical discussions of this approach, while his
m o n o g r a p h , P i g s f o r t h e A n c e s t o r s (1968), is the major e m p i r i c a l employment o f
the model. M a r g a r e t M a c A r t h u r (1974) raises serious objections, however, to
his interpretation o f nutritional data while A n d e r s o n (1973) questions the suitability of the local population as the unit ofecological analysis.
B. S. O r l o v e (1980) presents the clearest discussion of the actor-based model of h u m a n ecology and the label itself was suggested by h i m . A . P. V a y d a
and B .J . M c C a y (1975) also assert thai the proper focus o f h u m a n ecology
should be on i n d i v i d u a l decision m a k i n g regarding adaptation to e n v i r o n m e n tal hazards, a view given theoretical support from the standpoint o f current
31
Knvir<>nim-ii( and 1'olicy Institute
perspectives in biological evolutionary theory by P . J . Richerson (1977).
A. W.Johnson (1972)statesthe case for the importance of individual decision
making with regard to agricultural innovation, while M . Moerman (1968)
and M . M . Calavan (1977) present empiricalcase studies demonstrating the
"rationality" with which Thai peasants make decisions. Observationsregarding NorthernVietnamese resettled in the MekongDelta are from the author's
unpublished field notes. G . Hardin's (1968) paper, "TheTragedyof the Commons," points out that individualdecisions often insum lead toenvironmental
disaster. That individualsmay make erroneous choices isdocumented in chilling detail in Raul Hilberg's monograph, The Destruction
of the E u r o p e a n Jews
(1961). That there is a real distinction between survival of the individualor
populations of individualsand the survivalof whole culturalsystems is a point
clearly made in P. Diener's(1974)essayon the Hufterites.
There is no adequate single treatment of the systems model of human ecology. L . VonBertalanffy (1968) remains the basic work on general systems theory while E . Laszio(1972)offers one of the more readable introductions to an
often jargon-laden school ofthought. E . P. Odum(1971, 1977) presentsasystemsview ofecology with particularemphasis on the integrity ofthe ecosystem
as an analytic unit, an integrity that is questioned by P. A . Colinvaux(1973).
E. Durkheim (1915) is the precursor of structural-functional approaches to
society. That social facts can be explained only in terms of other social facts is
the theme of his Rules of Sociological
M e t h o d (1938). A . R. Radcliffe-Brown's
collected essays(1965)present the structural-functional approachas developed
by social anthropologists. Leslie White(1975) advances the thesis that adaptation occurs at the level of the social or culturalsystem rather than at the individual level. James Dow (1976) presents mathematical models for analyzing
the flow of energy, materials, and information between social and ecological
systems while the present author (Rambo 1982) explores more qualitative
applications of the systems model of human ecology to research on Southeast
Asian agriculturalsocieties.
Conceptual Approaches lo H u m a n Ecology
REFERENCES
Anderson, J . N .
1974
Ecologicalanthropology and anthropological ecology. InJ . J . Honigmann (ed.) Handbook of Social and C u l t u r a l Anthropology,
477-97.
Chicago: Rand M c N a l l y & C o .
Bates, M .
1953
Human ecology. In A . L .Kroeber(ed.) Anthropology
Today, 700-13.
Chicago: UniversityofChicago Press.
Bennett, J . W.
1976
TheEcological
T r a n s i t i o n : C u l t u r a l Anthropology
and H u m a n
Adaptation.
New York: Pergamon Press Inc.
Bolton,J. M .
1972
Food taboos among the Orang Asli in West Malaysia: A potential
nutritional hazard. A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l of C l i n i c N u t r i t i o n 25:789-99.
Calavan, M . M .
1977
Decisions
Against
N a t u r e : A n Anthropological
Study of A g r i c u l t u r e i n
N o r t h e r n T h a i l a n d . Special Reports No. 15. Normal Northern Illinois University CenterforSoutheast Asian Studies.
Colfer, C . J . P.
1981
Women, men, and time in the forests of East Kalimantan.
Research
Borneo
B u l l e t i n 13(2):75-85.
Colinvaux, P. A .
1973
I n t r o d u c t i o n loEcology.
New York:JohnWileyand Sons.
Diencr, P.
1974
Ecology or evolution? The Hutterite case. A m e r i c a n Ethnologist
1,
1974:601-18.
Dicner, P., Nonini, D . and E . E . Robkin
1978
Thedialectics of the sacred cow: ecological adaptation versus political appropriationin the origins of India's cattle complex. D i a l e c t i cal Anthropology
3(3):221-44.
Dow, James
1976
Systems models of cultural ecology. Social Science Information
15(6):
953-76.
Durkheim, E .
1915
The Elementary
F o r m s of Religious
Life. London: G . Allen and
Unwin, Ltd. (orig. 1912).
1938
T h e Rules of Sociological
Method.
New York: FreePress (orig. 1895).
Evans-Pritchard, E . E .
1940
The N u n . New York: Oxford University Press.
34
Environment and Policy Institute
Firth, R.
1936
We,the T i k o p i a : A Sociological
Study of Kinshop
London: G . Allen and Unwin,Ltd.
Forde, C .D .
1934
H a b i t a t , Economy
Geertz,C .
Polynesia.
and Society. London: Methuen & C o . Ltd.
1968
A g r i c u l t u r a l I n v o l u t i o n : The Process of Ecological
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Grossman, L .
1977
in Primitive
Change
Man-environment relationships in anthropology and geography.
Annals of the Association
of A m e r i c a n Geographers
67(1):126-44.
1968
The tragedy ofthecommons. Science 162, 13 Dec:1243-48.
Harris, M .
The culturalecology of India's sacred cattle. Current
51-59.
Mocrman, M .
1968
A g r i c u l t u r a l Change and Peasant Choice i na T h a i Village. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Netting, R. M c C .
1971
'The Ecological Approach in C u l t u r a l Study. New York: Addison-Wesley
Modular Publication No. 6.
i n Indonesia.
Hardin, G .
1966
Conceptual Approaches to H u m a n Ecology
Anthropology
1977
C u l t u r a l Ecology. Mcnlo Park, California: Cummings.
Odend'hal. S.
1972
Energetics of Indian cattle in their environment. H u m a n
l(l):3-22.
Odum, E . P.
1971
F u n d a m e n t a l s of Ecology,
Co.
Ecology
3rd edition. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders
7:
The emergence of ecology as a new integrative discipline.
Science
195:1289-93.
1975
Cows, Pigs,
inson.
Wars and Witches:
'The Riddles
of C u l t u r e . London: Hutch-
1980
Helm,J.
1961
The ecological approach in anthropology. A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l of
ogy 67:630-39.
Sociol-
Hilberg, R.
1961
The Destruction
Ltd.
Orlove, B. S.
of the E u r o p e a n Jews.
London: W. H . Allen &C o .
1965
1982
Individuality and experimentation in traditional agriculture. H u m a n Ecology 1(2): 149-59.
Kroeber, A .L .
9:234-73.
Sociology
and F u n c t i o n in P r i m i t i v e Society. New York: Free Press.
C u l t u r a l and N a t u r a l Areas of N a t i v e N o r t h A m e r i c a . Berkeley: University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol.38.
View of the World.
1968
1922
Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge and Sons, Ltd.;
New York: E. P. DuttonandCo.
Marsh, G .P.
M a n and N a t u r e . Cambridge:BelknapPress (orig. 1864).
J o u r n a l of Tropical
Geography
3(1):86-99.
Pigs for the A ncr.stors: R i t u a l in the Ecology
ofa New G u i n e a People.
New
Haven: Yale University Press.
1969
New York: George BrazillerInc.
1974
Pigsfor the ancestors: a review article. O c e a n i a 45(2):87-123.
Malinowski, B.
Human ecology research on tropical agroecosystems in Southeast
Rappaport, R.A .
Laszlo,E .
1965
Structure
Asia. Singapore
1972
1972
The Systems
McArthur,M .
of Anthropology
Rambo, A . Terry
Johnson, A .W.
1939
Ecological anthropology A n n u a l Review
Plait, R. S.
1948
Environmentalist!) versus geography. A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l of
53:351-58.
Radcliffe-Brown, A . R.
Some suggestions concerning concept and method in ecological
anthropology. In D . Damas (ed.) Contributions
to Anthropology:
Ecological Essays. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada, Bulletin
230, AnthropologicalSeries No. 86:184-88.
1971
Nature, culture and ecological anthropology. In H . L . Shapiro
(ed.) M a n , C u l t u r e , and Society, 237-67. Revised Edition. London:
Oxford University Press.
Richerson, P. J .
1977
Ecology and human ecology: A comparison of theories in the biological and social scicncics. A m e r i c a n Ethnologist
4:1-26.
Environment and Policy Institute
Sahlins, M . D.
1964
Culture and environment: the study of cultural ecology. In S. Tax
(ed.) Horizons in Anthropology,
132-47. Chicago: Aldine Publishing
Co.
Seckler, D.
1979
Sukhomajri: A rural development program in India. Unpublished
staff seminar paper, Ford Foundation, New Delhi (mimeographed).
Semple, E. C .
1911
Influences of Geographic
E n v i r o n m e n t : O n the Basis of Ratzel's System of
Anthropo-Geography.
New York: Henry Holt.
Sprout, H . ,and M . Sprout
1965
The Ecological
Perspective on H u m a n Affairs.
Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
Steward,J. H .
1938
Basin-Plateau
A b o r i g i n a l Sociopolitical
Groups.
Washington, D . C . :
Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin
120.
1955
Theory of C u l t u r e Change.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
1968
Ecology: culture ecology. In I n t e r n a t i o n a l Encyclopedia
ences 4:337-44.
ofthe Social
1977
E v o l u t i o n and Ecology:
versity of Illinois.
Urbana: Uni-
Essays on Social
Transformation.
Sci-
Thomas, F.
1925
The E n v i r o n m e n t a l Basis of Society: A Study i n the History of
Sociological
Theory. New York: The CenturyC o .
Tbynbee, A . J .
1947
A Study of History (Abridgement of vol. I-VI). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Vayda, A . P.and B . J . McCay
1975
New directions in ecology and ecological anthropology. A n n u a l Review of Anthropology
4:293-306.
Vayda, A . P.and R. A . Rappaport
1968
Ecology: culture and non-cultural. JnJ . A . Clifton (ed.) I n t r o d u c tion to C u l t u r a lAnthropology,
476-97. Boston: Houghton Mifflin C o .
Von Bcrtalanffy, L.
1968
General Systems Theory. New York: George Braziller Inc.
White, L .A .
1975
The Concept of C u l t u r a l Systems: A Key to Understanding
Nations. New York: Columbia University Press.
Tribes and
Conceptual Approaches to H u m a n Ecology
Whyte, R. O .
1968
L a n d , Livestock
and H u m a n N u t r i t i o n i n I n d i a . New York: Praeger
Publishers.
Young, G .L .
1974
Human ecology as an interdisciplinary concept: A critical inquiry.
In A . Macfadyen (ed.) Advances i n Ecological Research Vol.8, 1-105.
London: Academic Press Inc.
37
•Mill
EU03M23
East-West Environment and Policy Research Reports contain Institute or
cooperative research results that reflect the EAPI concept and approach to natural systems assessment for development, human interactions with tropical
ecosystems, environmental dimensions of energy policies, and marine environment and extended maritimejurisdictions.
Manuscripts for this series are reviewed for substance and content by refereesoutside the Institute before the EAPI Academic Publications Committee
makes a recommendation to publish.
Richard A .Carpenter,Chairman
EAPI Academic Publications Committee
Sheryl R. Bryson,Senior Editor