Synthesis of social-ecological theory to develop conceptual tools with explanatory power
5.3 Human systems: cultural characteristics
5.3.3 Strong coupling in cultural-ecological systems
There are, in contrast, many examples of cultural-ecological systems that can be described as strongly coupled, characterised by enhanced ecosystem functioning,
appropriate biodiversity and resilience and that have been managed intensively for thousands of years (Anderson 2010). A number of examples include human societies that initially caused a high loss of ecological diversity and function, but in time learnt to become strongly coupled with local ecological systems. Indigenous groups in North America provide a telling example. History indicates that Native Americans were responsible for extensive ecological loss when they first crossed the Bering Strait onto the American continent (Diamond 1989). However, when European settlers moved to North America, in the 1400s they, for example, mistook the intensively managed oak hickory forests as wilderness areas, reflecting how Native American groups had learnt to effectively manage the biodiversity of these forests (Anderson 2010). Another well- known example is the large-scale social-ecological collapse that initially happened on the Polynesian islands when groups of people colonised them. Social-ecological collapse was particularly severe on the smaller islands (Anderson 2010). However, on the larger islands the pioneers began to adapt to the local ecologies and “extremely fine-tuned systems arose” with strict taboos placed on resource overuse (Anderson 2010: 43). Tellingly taboo is a Polynesian word (Anderson 2010). Additional examples include the Montane Rain Forest of south-east Mexico, which is believed to be one of the most biologically diverse neo-tropical formations, in spite of the system having experienced centuries of intensive anthropogenic disturbance in the form of slash and burn agriculture (Ramírez-Marcial et al. 2001). Berkes and Folke (2001) described how the practices adopted by indigenous peoples of the Amazon (swidden fallow management, patch clearing and burning) have resulted in the long-term supply of a diversity of resources and ecosystem services.
From a reading of the literature I suggest that the threat of human-ecological collapse prompted the transformation of religious and educational institutions in a way that the weak genetic tendency for biophilia was encouraged (Kellert 2007). Anderson (2010) supports this. He describes how people new to an area increasingly learn to use their environment sustainability and calls this a “learning curve”. This could have translated into changed patterns of identifying with, types of knowledge about and forms of agency in ecological systems.
Human-related factors enabling strong coupling processes in cultural-ecological systems
There are a number of human-related factors that lead to healthy coupling in cultural- ecological systems, of which three are discussed. Firstly, the relevant culture experiences continuity of place (Strang 1997) or emplacement, a term coined by De Wet (2008) to refer to the long-term generational occupation of an area and resulting cultural-ecological connectivity. Emplacement facilitates the development of affective
values and a strong sense of collective identity with and dependency on the local landscape (Strang 1997). Knowledge, particularly of ecological processes and functions, relies on generations of accumulated experience, expertise and social memory (where successful adaptions become embedded in values and practices that guide communal stategies for dealing with ongoing change), indicating the importance of continuity of place (Berkes et al. 2003; Olsson et. al 2004).
Generational knowledge and expertise can be used to monitor and be responsive to change in ecological systems and enhance the learning capacity of a local community (Berkes et al. 2000). Generational knowledge also increases sensitivity to ecological feedback mechanisms, essential for successful adaptation to dynamic and constantly changing ecosystems (Berkes & Folke 1998). Continuity of place also enhances the ability to adapt to a particular landscape as cultural practices and values co-evolve to enhance rather than diminish ecosystem function (Norgaard 1994). Indigenous Australians, for example, have lived in Australia for about forty thousand years and, before their culture was disrupted through colonisation, experienced (and to a degree still do) a deep engagement with their local landscape, where every aspect of their life – social, physical, economic, intellectual, emotional and spiritual – was invested in their locality (Strang 1997). The land was steeped in symbolic meaning and value, with which they experienced a deep and intensely relational interaction (Strang 1997).
The second factor supporting cultural-ecological coupling is that local communities rely on the biological resources of local ecosystems to fulfil most of their needs, including energy needs (Bawa & Gadgil 1997; Berkes & Folke 1998). For example, the indigenous Maya people of Quintana Roo use thousands of plants species and hundreds of animals for a wide variety of uses including food, medicine, firewood, building materials, poison and soil restoration, to name a few (Anderson 2010). This provides an incentive to manage the ecosystem as a whole for sustained health, as even minor species are valued. Consequently such communities often behave as an integral component of the ecosystems they inhabit, which can lead to sustainable management practices (Bawa & Gadgil 1997; Kothari & Das 1999).
The third factor supporting social-ecological coupling is moral restraint when harvesting ecological resources. Religious institutions and ritual activities that support internalisation of moral rules and encoding of ecological respect can play an important role (Hornborg 1996; Berkes et al. 2000; Anderson 2010). The value of religion is that it can both teach care for the environment and develop a conscience in the believer that motivates them to follow the rules, “even when no game warden is near” (Anderson
There are numerous examples of traditional communities showing moral restraint when utilising ecological resources. Anderson (2010) described how Native American Indian groups highly valued the rare western red cedar for its bark. For the tree to continue growing only one narrow piece could be removed. It has been documented that these local people would walk miles to find several trees when harvesting the bark so that one tree would not be stripped beyond its capacity to re-grow. A deeply felt prayer would be said and the tree thanked for what was taken. Anderson (2010) explained that strong internalised social rules prevented people from over harvesting the bark. Religious reasons also led to the conservation of local ecologies by natives of the American North West who believe that the trees, mountains and animals have personal and powerful spirits that can be communicated with. For bark, berries and animals, humble requests would be made to these spirits: “Taking too many animals, or taking them without the proper rituals alienated the animal spirits, and guaranteed failure in the next hunt” (Anderson 2010: 36).
Figure 5.2 provides a conceptual diagram synthesising the discussion thus far. It highlights the emergence of symbolic representation from co-evolving human- ecological systems. These symbolic representations become expressed in culture and worldviews, and influence patterns of identifying, types of knowledge and forms of agency. The nature of these will determine the degree that cultural systems are embedded within ecological reality and the extent of cultural-ecological coupling. A cultural system closely coupled with ecological realities is likely to value ecological systems and manage them for their health, while less coupled cultural-ecological systems are likely to lead to the opposite. Because of their integrated nature, the extent of ecological health and value will affect the decline or sustainability of cultural- ecological systems. Examples have been provided of the learning that can take place when cultural-ecological systems are facing decline. This learning can enhance or reduce biophyllic instincts that become encoded in patterns of identifying, types of knowledge and forms of agency. This in turn affects the strength of cultural-ecological coupling and extent that human societies co-evolve with ecological systems.
The chapter now turns to a discussion of different patterns of identifying, types of knowledge and forms of agency that promote increased cultural-ecological coupling, based on insights from the literature. Some of the ideas are inspired by examples from non-western, more traditional societies. In each section I compare these insights to the hegemonic, modern, western patterns of identifying, forms of knowledge and types of agency that are supporting decoupling social-ecological processes. I am aware of the danger of creating a dialectic and that the modern, western experience is diverse and nuanced. However, for the scope of this thesis I
examine the hegemonic, rather than diverse and nuanced, modern western patterns of being.
Figure 5.2: A conceptual synthesis of processes leading to cultural-ecological sustainability or collapse (based on Norgaard 1994; Westley et al. 2002; Mingers 2006;
Kellert 2007; Sterling 2007)