Search

The concept of the keystone species has a long history in ecological analysis, although its validity remains controversial. Anthropological researchers have recently coined the term cultural keystone species, but have not demonstrated any significant differences from existing treatments of culturally important species. We define cultural keystones according to their systemic function, as having essential roles in maintaining any level of complexity within a social–ecological system. Examples include bitter cassava consumption among lowland South American groups such as the Wapishana in Guyana, and commercial cultivation of carrots in Rurukan Village in Minahasa, Indonesia. These examples are both essential at one level of systemic reproduction: within the domestic and village economy in the cassava case, and carrots within regional markets. While each is centred upon a single biological species, the cultural keystone itself is not this species, but a complex incorporating several material and non-material system elements.

Overintensification and subsidies have long made American commodity farmers the enemy of conservationists. Yet, environmental conditions are improving in the Mississippi Delta where farmer-based groups, water management districts and conservation organizations have improved environmental quality and redefined the role of agriculture in environmental preservation. This work is all the more remarkable given the region’s deeply conservative politics that discourage regulation. This paper examines this mainstreaming of environmental values in light of debates on the role of the state in fostering environmental subjectivities. Following cultural examinations of the state, we caution that the presence or retreat of the state is insufficient to understanding environmental subjectivities. Instead, an ethnographic focus is necessary to identify connections between the state and particular human-environment relations. In the Delta, this focus shows that local environmentalism is consonant with a politics of unsustainability, one that simultaneously advances radical ecological change and defense of the region’s social hierarchies.

A Brazilian Indian village divided into several settlements during the 1980s. In this article, the political ecology approach is used to account for the process whereby this occurred. Data on ecology, subsistence practices, demography, and regional dynamics are presented. Analysis of results explores the articulation between shifts in population levels both in the region and in the Indian reservation, on one hand, with environmental stresses on reservation resources. The effects on national economic development programs on the regional and local levels are also discussed. The relationship between these policies and programs, on one hand, and alterations in local production systems are made explicit.

A recent debate in ecological anthropology concerns the availability of wild foods for human foragers in tropical forests. This article is a response to the five essays in this same issue of Human Ecology that examine the hypothesis that hunter-gatherers could never have lived in tropical rain forest without direct or indirect access to cultivated foods. We clarify the hypothesis and assess the evidence offered to date. Archeological evidence suggests foraging without cultivation in Malaysia. We propose a program of ecological studies and archeological research which, if undertaken, should provide the evidence necessary to falsify the hypothesis.

Ecological approaches within maritime anthropology are reviewed, particularly those concerned with resource management in fisheries and characterized by certain assumptions of systems ecology. The systems ecology approach used in anthropology exhibits certain problems, including the assumption of equilibria, the tendency to restrict analyses to immediate and “natural” environmental relations, and the reification of analytical systems. Under the rubric of “people ecology,” data from research among commercial fishermen of Fogo Island, Newfoundland, are used to explore an alternative that emphasizes people rather than systems as starting points for study, and underscores the role of larger social and political processes in affecting local man — environment relations.

Traditional Newfoundland horticulture has been a subordinate and compensatory element of the subsistence sphere in a plural economy centered on fishing. Criticized as inefficient and ruinous to the land, this tuber-rootbrassica gardening has in fact been a valuable contribution to diet, is relatively efficient, and compensates for the inadequacies of land and weather. Field data from the Great Northern Peninsula, where some traditional practices persist, demonstrate that the practices conserve time and labor, and substitute massive applications of materials to assure a yield sufficient for household needs. The inefficiency in the tradition may be understood as a response to the constraints upon household labor and follows a kind of Leibig's law of the minimum. Recent changes in gardening practices reveal the dynamics of horticulture in the household's mixed economic strategy. As cash and land have become more common, they have been used to further reduce time while maintaining sufficiency.

In this article, I argue that human social behavior is a product of the coevolution of human biology and culture. While critical of attempts by anthropologists to explain cultural practices as if they were independent of the ability of individual human beings to survive and reproduce, I am also leery of attempts by biologists to explain the consistencies between neo-Darwinian theory and cultural behavior as the result of natural selection for that behavior. Instead, I propose that both biological and cultural attributes of human beings result to a large degree from the selective retention of traits that enhance the inclusive fitnesses of individuals in their environments. Aspects of human biology and culture may be adaptive in the same sense despite differences between the mechanisms of selection and regardless of their relative importance in the evolution of a trait. The old idea that organic and cultural evolution are complementary can thus be used to provide new explanations for why people do what they do.