Download fitzhardinge-g-1994-alternative-understanding-relationship

AN ALTERNATIVE UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE ECOSYSTEM AND THE SOCIAL SYSTEM
IMPLICATIONS FOR LAND MANAGEMENT IN SEMI-ARID AUSTRALIA
-
Guy Fitzhardinge
P.O.Box 35, Mandurama, NSW, 2792
Abstract
The growing concerns of the wider community for bio-diversity, ecological maintenance and
sustainable long term productivity of Australia's rangelands has focussed attention on land
management practices in the semi-arid and arid areas. Where conventional farming paradigms
concentrated on farming practices and methods, the paradigms of sustainability rest heavily on
changes to farming philosophy for their success. The basic challenges have been well understood
for years, and almost all the research has gone into the process of understanding the resource. There
is little understanding of the relationship between the ecosystem and either society in general, or
the local community. The basic relationship, that between society and the ecosystem, is being
overlooked. The social system determines human objectives and the ecosystem presents a range of
possibilities through which these objectives are to be realised. Using the work of Ingold, it is
argued that technology, ideology and structure are the products of the relationship between society
and the ecosystem. The interaction between the ecosystem and the social system then presents a set
of possible outcomes that culture atteinpts to solve. There is a need to shift attention from
technology and ideology to examining and understanding the relationship between the social
system and the ecosystem if the desired changes, such as the maintenance of biodiversity or
sustainability, are to be more than superficial.
Introduction
As desertification and land degradation increasingly become the focus of the concerns of the
wider community, attention is being placed on the semi-arid and arid areas and the perceived
need to change user's attitudes from a production/productivity orientation to one of
sustainability. Structural adjustment is possible at a government level, but unless this is
reflected in a similar change in the behaviour of users, such changes will never be entirely
satisfactory. The industrial model of agriculture ( that "the farm is like a factory, with inputs
and outputs, and considers fields and animals to be productive units", Kirschenmann 1991) is
outdated. Ikerd's concept of a farming system as "including people: the principal farm operator,
hired farm workers and ...all members of the family who are considered part of the farming
operation" (Ikerd 1993, p.154) is incomplete. Schaller is closer to the mark when he states that
for sustainability io succeed, a major requisite is a "change in societal values" (Schaller 1993,
p.89). However, the assistance of sociology and other social sciences such as anthropology is
needed not for the reason that Buttell sees, "to help in assessing the social forces that affect
agricultural research and agricultural policy" (Butte1 1993, p.175). Rather, they are needed to
understand the social system in the context of its interaction with the ecosystem, and to
elucidate how that association affects both the social system and the ecosystem. To create the
desired change there is a need to understand the unique relationship that each community has
with the ecosystem, and to use the potential opportunities this presents to make significant
changes in behaviour. Structural and technological change is not enough to establish a
permanent shift in land use practices.
At this point a word of caution is needed about the understanding of the ecosystem. Sense is
made of the physical or natural sciences through a knowledge of 'human systems'. As
Checkland says "systems thinking ...(is) about the use of a particular set of ideas in trying to
understand the worlds complexity" (Checkland 1990). A system then is a tool, a fabrication, a
concept by which we are able to derive sense. One strength of systems thinking is that it
accommodates the view that the properties of a system can be more than the sum of its
constituent parts.
Relationship between the eco-systemand social system
Another is that such systems can explain inter-relationships and be dynamic. As attractive as
systems thinking is, it remains a method of explanation and understanding rather than the
description of a natural fact.
Attention is now being directed with increasing intensity on the semi-arid (rangeland) areas of
Australia. The reasons for this attention are multiple, and no longer based on the issues of
production and productivity. There are social considerations, and this applies mainly to southwest Queensland and the Western Division of New South Wales, where state regulations and
market forces, coupled with the harsh environment and unpredictable markets have left the rural
community fighting for social equality and even survival. Another concern is that of resource
degradation and the loss of bio-diversity, for many land users are seen to be degrading a
resource that belongs not just to them but to the whole community. There are questions of
economic and ecological sustainability as well. As a community we are beginning to
differentiate between public good and private good; and between public cost and private cost.
There is growing recognition that optimal strategies for private good do not necessarily equate
with optimum strategies for public good. The dichotomy between optimal strategies in a
publiclprivate sense in a temporal context is especially important in the rangelands. Changes
in a rangeland ecosystem can be slow, often spread over generations of users.
Progress has been made through computer modelling, and decision support systems. There are
satellite monitoring systems, satellite maps, satellite weather forecasts. We have a wealth of
information on plant production, animal nutrition and requirements, soils and soil
requirements. There are a multitude of farm accounting and 'paddock manager' software
programs, and information systems whereby every landholder is only a phone call away from
advice. Why is it that the initial challenges remain?
Although there is a mass of information on 'how' people do things, there appears to be an
acute shortage of information on 'why' people do things. In this respect the social system has
been ignored, or at the least has been perceived as being unimportant in the process. However,
the social system is important as it frames the possibilities of what an individual can
intelligibly do, and in effect provides the "skeleton of meaning around which the individual can
frame his intentions" (Ryan 1970, p.17).
Acceptance of the classical understanding of the relationship between the social system and the
ecosystem has led to some important considerations being ignored. Some of these are listed
below, and although the list is by no means definitive, it does indicate areas that have received
insufficient attention due to the current conceptual framework.
private ownership as opposed to communal ownership of land. How does this effect
resource management? What are the responsibilities, the privileges and rewards inherent
in various systems of ownership? How does multiple resource use effect ownership?
Should the individual or the community be responsible for the management of the land,
and who should bear the rewards and costs?
Permanency of occupancy versus opportunistic grazing systems: Our present system of
agriculture implies permanent occupation. In some cases this may be inappropriate for
the attainment of either social or ecological goals.
Traditional concepts about what farmers do, and what they should be rewarded for: the
current understanding of the role of farmers is limited, and confined to roles of
productivity and production. An extension of the understanding of this role would include
the nurturing and caretaking of a community resource, and taking care of fragile or
endangered ecosystems.
Rewards for production and productivity and not resource maintenance: the present
economic system rewards producers for productivity and production, but only indirectly
and partially rewards individuals for resource maintenance. In some cases land use
strategies that are appropriate for an individual are inappropriate for the community.
The perception of land as a resource in terms of economic rationalism: the land is more
than simply a source of production: there are benefits to the whole community in the
maintenance of ecosystems and bio-diversity that are difficult to evaluate simply in
economic terms. As well, it needs to be recognised that there are various forms of
resource use that generate differing levels of resource consumption.
If the mistakes of the past hundred years are not to be repeated, then a new paradigm is needed.
Fundamental in any new paradigm will be research and modelling that attempts to provide a
better understanding of the linkages between humans, their society and the environment in
which they live. There is a need to examine some fundamental assumptions about
relationships that appear to have been accepted without question by current paradigms. This
article seeks to provide an alternative model for an understanding of the interaction between the
social system and the ecosystem, and provides discussion of some possible implications. Any
attempt to affect conditions in either the ecological environment or the social environment will
necessarily have to be holistic and concentrate on the relationships between the various
systems involved. Given that this relationship is probabilistic and not deterministic, then how
can we alter the nature of the relationship to provide the possibility of more desirable
outcomes?
The need for a social-anthropological approach
The rationale for intervention in the rangelands is that studies (such as Wilcox and
Cunningham in 'Economic and ecological sustainability of current land use in Australia's
rangelands, 1994) have indicated that current forms of pastoralism have substantially degraded
rangeland ecosystems and in their present form are potentially unsustainable. The effect of this
has been a lowered productivity base (op. cit). There are serious questions being asked about
the ethics of a system of consumptive resource utilisation that contributes to ecologicd
degradation. Where in the past such a system was seen as justifiable on the grounds of
production and productivity, this is no longer so, and the attitudes and expectations of the
wider community are now focussed on sustainability and environmental responsibility. Past
studies of productivity and biomass have tended to ignore many of the cultural factors which
govern resource exploitation under traditional management, as well as the adaptive processes
that modify plant-animal relationships (Nyerges 1982).
Such anthropological research that has been done has attempted to analyse pastoral societies in
terms of the ecological, economic and political pressures affecting them. Most anthropological
studies have attempted to explain how social organisation has adapted in response to
environmental pressures and herding technology. In other words, some traits in pastoral
societies have been treated as ecological adaptations, at the same time assuming that the
technology, the animals and the ecology are "unchanging givens in the system" (Nyerges
1982, p.220). For Nyerges, the critical question is what are the interrelated adaptive processes
that animals, humans and plants have created as a result of the relationship between each other?
It has been argued that there are certain fundamental cultural and natural structures on which the
potential productivity of ecosystems and cultural integrity rely (cf. Leff 1985). The study of
ethnography and anthropology are the means by which an understanding is gained of the
complex core of cultural organisation. In Leffs words (1985, p.265) they:
"...help to reconstruct the historical processes of articulation of culture and nature, (and)
serve the practical purpose of promoting a more harmonic structuration between
ecosystems and sociosystems".
256
Relationship between the eco-systemand social system
The articulation of cultural, ecological and historical processes leads to the formation of
practical knowledge that helps us understand the traditional and cultural management of natural
resources. An insight into the ideological formations of a culture, provided by an
anthropological perspective, is important, as it provides an understanding of processes beyond
a simplistic economic rationality derived from a process of biological adaptation and
environmental assimilation. This will be expanded upon using the work of Ingold (1980) as a
model.
Ingold's model
Ingold's work is of interest as it accommodates cause and effect in both directions; that is,
between the environment and society, and between society and the environment. In looking at
ecological anthropology, we are accepting that there is a relationship between the environment
and the society. We have accepted that not all functions of society are determined by the
environment, and indeed we leave open the question as to what proportion of the functioning
of society can be explained by the association with the environment. Our philosophical
approach will determine, with respect to those functions that have a affiliation with the
environment, whether these various functions have developed 'despite' the environment, or
have been 'promoted or facilitated' by it to develop. Thus the difficulty lies not simply in
establishing the connection between society and the environment: the difficulty is also in
establishing the nature of this relationship. The nature of the relationship is possibilistic, in
that the relationship provides the possibilities and probabilities of various outcomes, and it is
the various ways'that people go about considering the implications of a particular outcome
that are important in the process of change.
A landmark study in this area was a study conducted by Tim Ingold (1980) into "reindeer
economies and their transformations". Although this study is far removed from the semi-arid
lands geographically, it provides valuable anthropological insights and ways of thinking about
the environment and society. Ingold's work involves the study of reindeer herders in the Arctic
tundra, and was spawned by earlier work on the Skolt Lapps in 1976, and the reading of
Paine's (1971) 'Animals as Capital', which was an anthropological exploration of the contrasts
between hunting and pastoralism in the far north. In a similar environment and ecology, and
with a similar resource (reindeer) why was it that three completely different systems of
utilisation (hunting, pastoralism and ranching) developed?
Some concepts need to be discussed, as Ingold's model is dependent on a particular
understanding of certain theories. The first relates to the Darwinian concept of evolution being
applied as a social or cultural concept to explain change. Ingold (p.6) makes the point that the
transmission of culture proceeds quite independently of biological reproduction. He sees culture
as a repertoire of technical, organisational and ideological models
" ... the acceptance or rejection of alternative models will depend on their perceived efficacy
...in either explaining or acting upon the real world, in accordance with a set of premises
that are socially given."
The cultural materialist argument holds that sociocultural systems are a product of the
deterministic influence of 'techno-environmental pressures'. Ingold's model differs radically
from this, and refutes the principle of positive determination, and as such means that physical
environmental pressures only act on what has been created, as opposed to determining what is
to be created. The environment therefore sets limits on the changes in the sociocultural system.
Ingold views evolution in this context as being the "succession of qualitative transformations
in the social relations of production, each of which generates a corresponding transformation in
the ecological conditions of reproduction". Here the social system determines human
objectives, and the ecosystem determines the conditions within which these objectives are to be
realised. It is the combination of these two processes that define a set of problems that culture
attempts to solve. It is on this level that cultural adoption or change operates. Therefore the
properties of a cultural system originate from the interaction of social and ecological
conditions.
Ingold's challenge was to explain the emergence of three models of production, each specialised
in the exploitation of the same animal in the same environment, but each differentiated by a
different complex of social and ecological relations. The three models of production were seen
as hunting, pastoralism and ranching (Fig. 1). They differ in an ecological sense in that one
form of production is about predation (hunting) while the other two are about protection. On a
social level pastoralism and ranching contain the contradictory rationalities of sharing and
accumulation respectively on the basis of shared or divided access to land. A second social
difference between pastoralism and ranching is that where ranching is market driven,
pastoralism is very much subsistence-oriented, though not necessarily completely. So, in
regard to access to animals, with hunting there is common access, where as in both
pastoralism and ranching access is divided. In the context outlined above, hunting and ranching
are direct opposites while pastoralism contains elements of both.
\
protection
PASTORALISM
accumulation
HUNTING
sharing
predation
RANCHING
market
Fig. 1. The hunting-pastoralism-ranching triangle (from Ingold 1980, p.6)
The model that Ingold uses to account for the development of these differing production and
social systems is depicted in Fig. 2, with the various linkages between the cultural
superstructure, and productive infrastructure depicted as well as those between the ecosystem
and the social system. The diagram comes from Ingold, p.8.
Ingold's model places the actual dynamics of social evolution in the interplay between the
social and ecological systems, and not in the domain of culture. The social system is seen to
dominate the ecosystem, and the reciprocal action is that of possibilism and limitation by the
ecosystem on the social system. The traditional model of cultural ecology inverts the cultural
superstructure and Ingold's productive infrastructure, and like orthodox Marxist theory places
technology and ideology in the productive infrastructure. In this way ideology and technology
are seen as determinants of the relationship between the cultural system and the ecosystem, and
not products of it. To illustrate this point, Ingold uses the example of hunting and ranching of
reindeer to demonstrate how the social relations of production are separate from the technical
organisation, and cannot be united under the general rubric "social organisation" Both hunting
and ranching involve similar technologies and similar work organisation in a common
environment. However, the social relations of production in each case are diametrically
opposed, and thus it cannot be deduced that they are a product of the interaction of the
environment and technology.
In 1848, Carl Marx and Friedrich Engles asserted in 'The manifesto of the Communist Party'
that the pivotal characteristic of social organisation was class struggle, and that the economic
organisation and social constructs that it forges lie at the heart of every facet of society.
Property and the productive system were, according to Marx, fundamental determinants of the
classical, feudal and industrial civilisations; hence the designation so often applied to Marx's
thesis, that of "economicdeterminism". Mam wrote:
Relationship between the eco-system and social system
"...the mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social,
political and spiritual processes of life ...it is not the consciousness of men that
determines their existence but ...their existence that determines their consciousness"
(Hodges 1974, p.219).
Ideology
SUPERSTRUCTURE
' 4
Selective pressure
! ! Adaptive response
PRODUCTIVE
INFRASTRUCTURE
Ecosystem
Social
system
Fig. 2. A schematic representation of the linkages between ecological, social and
cultural systems (from Ingold 1980, p8).
Ingold differs from Marxism in the notion of productive forces. Under Marxist ideology they
are taken to mean tools and technology that are available to the community. Production is then
the enactment of an ideology in a functional sense, and there is a sharp distinction made
between the productive mechanism and the ideology. Ingold maintains that no such sharp
distinction can be made, and in fact ideology and technology are connected in that technology
is the practical manifestation of ideology. The infrastructural relationship is then between the
environment and man "through the mediation of his ideas and techniques" (p.9). This
distinction is made clear in Ingold's discussion of the transformation from hunting to
pastoralism. It will be recalled that this change took place in one environment, with the same
animals, the same technology and in the same economy, and resulted in private ownership of
animals on one hand (pastoralism), and public (hunting) on the other. Marxist theory seeks to
explain this evolution in terms of a technological shift in food production, where each
innovation
"...by overcoming the limitations imposed by the more primitive forces of the previous
stage, released the potential inherent in human society toward population growth, surplus
production and cultural elaboration" (~ngold,p.83).
This is the classic Marxist sequence of evolutionary stages. Ingold, however, rejects this, and
says that the difference between hunting and pastoralism is not the result of a change in
technology that has overcome limitations in the production system, but a change in the
productive relationship between the animals and man (p.82). It is for this reason that Ingold
places technology with ideology in the cultural superstructure (Fig. 2).
Ingold's work provides a challenging new framework to look at the social anthropology of the
rangelands. As he says himself, it is not a "facts" book but rather an "ideas" book, and he
cautions the direct application of the ideas contained in the book to the exploitation of other
animals. His challenge is for others to identify the common areas, and to attempt to explain
the areas of difference.
The situation in the Western Division now is very similar to the conditions a hundred years
ago, showing that our understanding of the forces involved and attempts to regulate these are
still sadly lacking. Work such as Ingold's illustrates that it is necessary to take a far more
systemic view of the problem, and that the simplistic understanding that has been previously
applied has been unsatisfactory. Proponents of holistic type approaches like Savory (1988)
still address the system from the "cultural superstructure" level. Holism is nothing more that a
process for linking more effectively elements within the cultural superstructure. Ingold's
(1980) separation of the cultural superstructure from the productive infrastructure challenges
current thinking. Ingold's placement of ideology, technology and organisation within the
cultural superstructure raises questions about the effectiveness of current extension and
structural adjustment activities in the attainment of goals such as bio-diversity and resource
maintenance. Such an approach highlights the need for research that examines behaviour
within Ingold's conceptual context as an necessary component of understanding Rangeland
social and ecosystem interaction. Decisions about management and landuse activities are not
made in isolation from the attitudes and values of either the immediate local society, or
indirectly from society as a whole.
Ingold's work has much to recommend it, and it certainly challenges traditional concepts of the
evolution and association between man, his animals and their environment. There are two
particular aspects that I wish to discuss in relation to the semi-arid environments. The first is
that if we are to conclude that the Marxian evolutionary theory of technological development is
unsatisfactory in that it fails to explain and predict behaviour adequately, and instead favour the
approach of Ingold, then it certainly raises some questions about changing land use practices
through extension. The most direct course for intervention would be to examine the productive
interaction between man and animals. Figure 2 indicates that the altering of technology has a
similar result to altering either ideology or organisation in having only an adaptive response to
the domination of the social system over the ecosystem. The reason is that these three factors
lie in Ingold's "cultural superstructure" and as such have only an indirect effect on the nature of
the productive infrastructure. If one is interested in the state of the environment, and wishes to
alter it in some way, then it is through the social system that it is possible to have the most
direct effect. Our traditional approach, through changes to technology, appear to have limited
use in establishing predictable and permanent changes. Technology is significant only in that
it is a product of an established association between man and the environment, and works in
combination with ideology and social organisation to influence the social system, and thus the
ecosystem.
The other feature of Ingold's work that is interesting to consider in a semi-arid context is his
discussion of homeostatic regulation. It is commonly assumed in the ecology of pastoralism
that there are self regulatory mechanisms that balance the animal population and the carrying
capacity of the land. The development of ranching (the restricted access to both land and
animals) was seen to obliterate these homeostatic checks and balances, the result being
degradation of the ecology through an imbalance between use and potential. Ingold dismisses
the concept of inherent homeostatic balances in the pastoral situation, and cites the recurrent
famines and epizootic outbreaks as being the effects of a failure to regulate. In no sense is this
a 'mechanism of regulation', but simply the indication of the absence of such a mechanism,
that leads to self destruction! Much of the work by people like Savory (1988) have as a basis
an assumption of some sort of natural balance, and implicit homeostatic mechanism. In
Ingold's eyes, these may never have existed. The implication here is that by establishing a
system where demand and supply are balanced, we are in fact creating an 'un-natural system',
Relationship between the eco-system and social system
and not returning to a 'natural system'. It is worth questioning whether it is ever possible (or
desirable) to return to a 'natural system'. One of the attractive features of a 'natural system' is
the concept of homeostatic regulation. Rappaport's (1986) work, that seeks to establish a
homeostatic mechanism of regulation, ignores to a large extent the concept of cognition. For
example, Rappaport defines an ecological system as
"...a complex homeostatic mechanism, operating to maintain the values of a number of
variables within ...ranges of values that permit the perpetuation of a system."
As Ingold (p.206) points out, there is a problem in confusing 'adaptive action' and 'control'
within a system, and thus the effects of a failure to regulate as a method of regulation. For
example, the
"...recurrent eruption and consequent catastrophic reduction of herds of Chukchi
pastoralists demonstrates ...the incapacity of Chukchi social institutions to maintain
animal numbers within a range of optimal values"
Conceptualising ecosystems in terms of 'systems' often implies a system of homeostatic
balances and checks. These regulatory mechanisms are seen to balance things like carrying
capacity with animal numbers. Thus before white settlement kangaroos prospewkor perished
depending on seasonal conditions. The argument is that with European development in the
rangelands homeostatic regulation has been abolished. It could well be that such incidences of
mass starvation and epizootic events were a demonstration of a lack of homeostatic regulation
rather than an positive indication of it. What are the implications for the old 'range succession
model' or the newer Westoby (1989) 'state-and-transition model'? Has our understanding of
rangeland processes been side-tracked by the appealing (and perhaps illusionary) concept of
equilibrium?
While Ingold dismisses the contention that there are homeostatic regulatory mechanisms
inherent in the system, it is important to realise that many societies may well have a
conscious and deliberate process of regulating the number of animals. As Fisher (1986) says,
in the sense of homeostatic systems there is a need to look at socio-ecological situations rather
than socio-ecologicalsystems. For example, individuals will make decisions about drought on
their perception of the availability of fodder and the expected demand. The decision is likely to
be different between individuals and between events. Individual options are established options,
culturally recognised and endorsed by society. In other words, society provides acceptable
alternatives, and the individual operates within this framework. The ecological conditions pose
one set of limitations to behaviour; society provides another.
When Australia was colonised by Europeans they not only brought with them technology and
tools; they brought an established social system, that included established cultural and
economic practices. Therefore the foundations of the relationship between the social system
and the ecosystem in the rangelands were already laid, all be it for a different ecosystem. The
centuries of evolution that have characterised the human/ecological associations in other semiarid rangeland areas was bypassed. Holism founders on this point as it accepts the relationship
as it is, and simply accommodates it within a systemic framework. Similarly Landcare, though
it has made an important contribution in accommodating both social and individual goals
within a single framework, is still limited by confining its operations to the cultural
superstructure when in fact it should also be operating within the productive infrastructure. For
Landcare to be truly successful it has to question the motivation and context in which actions
are taken, not just 'how' these things are done. For example, if land is being utilised beyond its
capacity, then what are the characteristics of the social and economic systems that drive the
user to this extent of utilisation? While both holism and Landcare are examples of a more
enlightened and systemic approach to an understanding of the problems of semi-arid landuse,
their value in resolving current problems is constrained by their focus on the cultural
superstructure. Neither reflects a move in thinking away from the cultural superstructure and
on to the relationship between the ecosystem and the social system. The concept of Landcare
as applied to the rangelands will never be more than partially successful while society rewards
land users for production and productivity and fails to reward them for resource maintenance.
The social and economic system under which society operates is still reluctant to incorporate
non market values.
Stafford Smith (1993) sees the current problems in the semi-arid lands of Australia as the
result of a failure in the understanding of the chain of events that proceed from the utilisation
of pasture to the generation of cash flows. These linkages join plant production and animal
growth to management decisions and cash flows. Stafford Smith sees three outcomes of a
strengtheningthese linkages through an increased understanding of the processes involved:
a better knowledge of the impact of grazing pressure;
the development of realistic grazing strategies;
the development of measures of performance that link economic output with pasture
condition.
Ingold would set all these measures in the domain of the cultural superstructure, and therefore
having only an indirect effect on the management of the ecosystem. Much of the current
thinking about the management of the rangelands fits into Ingold's cultural superstructure, and
fits within the traditional paradigms of research and extension. While traditional extension
practices have been somewhat successful in the more intensively farmed areas, its success has
been limited in the semi-arid and arid lands. Advances in agriculture made in the higher rainfall
zones have not been reflected in the semi-arid areas.
Summary and conclusion
The fundamental association to be considered is the relationship between the social system and
the ecosystem that Ingold calls the productive infrastructure; neither the ecosystem nor the
social system are products of technology. By restricting planned change to the cultural
superstructure, there is a failure to acknowledge the nature of the influence that technology,
ideology and structure has with the productive infrastructure. We have failed to realise that the
cultural superstructure is a product of the interaction between society and the ecosystem, and
as such any changes made in this area will only have an indirect effect on the relationship
between society and the ecosystem. Our fixation with technological change is then akin to
treating the effects and not the cause.
There are some general issues emanating from Ingold's proposition that need to be considered
for the implications are far reaching:
The traditional approach of generating management proposals through a study of plants
and animals has led to the perpetuation of traditional patterns of use, often with significant
detrimental social and ecological consequences (i.e. The Western Division of New South
Wales). The interrelated adaptive processes that animals, humans and plants have created as
a result of a mutual relationship needs to be examined.
There is a need to recognise and explore certain fundamental cultural and natural structures
on which the potential productivity of ecosystems and cultural integrity rely. What are the
historical processes involved, and how can a more harmonic relationship be developed
between man and nature? What has led to the current system of land use in the Rangelands?
The cultural, ecological and historical processes need to be articulated to derive an insight
into current ideologies.
262
Relationship between the eco-system and social system
Recognition must be made of the fact that culture is transferred from generation to
generation in a manner quite inconsistent with the processes of Darwinian evolution.
Ingold's model proposes that techno-environmentalpressures act on what has been created,
and not, as positive determination would imply, determining what is to be created. Ingold's
argument is possibilistic, and sees the ecosystem determining the extent rather than the
nature of change.
If we discard the Marxian theory of technological development, and pursue the approach
favoured by Ingold, then one aspect becomes clear. If we wish to alter the relationship
between man, his animals and the ecosystem, then the use of technology is an inefficient
and cumbersome way of doing it. A far more efficient way is to make changes to the social
system, and allow such changes to generate the adaptive responses by technology.
There are other aspects resulting from a reconsideration of the association between society and
the ecosystem that are more specific and are worthy of examination. These could include:
Should an individual have sole right to the use of the land, or should a number of
interests be accommodated?
Valuation of land simply in terms of production potential: Land has been traditionally
valued in terms of its potential to generate wealth. Holmes (1994) looks at some of the
problems in assessing non economic values.
Finally the development of a more spiritual and harmonic relationship between mankind
and the land: many in the community feel a bond with nature and the land. It is at the
essence of our cultural and heritage, traditions and folk law. There is a feeling that life is
de-valued in its absence. It needs to be recognised that there is both a cost and
responsibility associated with the maintenance of this, and that such costs should be born
equally throughout the whole community. One consequence of Ingold's model is that the
responsibility for and ownership of outcomes belongs to the whole social system rather
than selected segments of it (i.e. landusers).
How could this be done? The first step is to come to terms as a community (and not just
landholders) with the characteristics of the ecosystem, and to realise that if we are to live in a
sustainable way with the ecosystem then our relationship must accommodate these
characteristics. Thus seasonal variability, drought, fire and floods are all seen as natural and
inherent and must be accommodated as such. This follows on to a system of land use that is
sympathetic and accommodating with the ecosystem. Such a land use system would
accommodate the needs of the ecosystem within the requirements of the social system. It is
highly questionable that a system of land use developed in a completely different ecosystem is
appropriate. Though superficial changes in the application have been made, the underlying
philosophies about man's relationship with the land have not. Holmes (1994) and others have
highlighted the need to shift thinking to non-market values and this is certainly a step in the
right direction. However, it still begs the question as to whether expectations about the
outcomes are attainable within the current relationship.
What is it that the community wants agriculture to do? This question is explored well by
Coffey (1994) who challenges some of the current thinking. The community expects and
rewards some outcomes, but expects and does not reward others. Are the desired outcomes
necessarily compatible with the system? We seek to change the outcomes by changing
technology and ideology, but what if the basic relationship is incompatible with the desired
outcomes? The inherited relationship between the social system and the ecosystem balanced
expectations and outcomes with inputs in its original context. This has not been the case when
transplanted into a different environmental context. There is now a realisation that agriculture
has failed to deliver certain expected outcomes. If agriculture is the primary outcome of the
relationship between the social system and the ecosystem, then what do we really want
agriculture to do? Coffey (1994 p7) quotes an anonymous editorial in the New Statesman
(1984):
"the world needs more food, which means better agriculture, which means more
agricultural research. But farming isn't just about production. It is about employment
...and about countryside and ways of life. ...Clearly the prime question is not how to
overcome obstacles to production, but what do we really want agriculture to do?
For change to be permanent and sustainable in the rangelands the relationship between the
social system and the ecosystem has to be altered. The role and nature of agriculture is a
reflection of this more fundamental relationship. If the expectations of society are inconsistent
with the relationship that society has with the ecosystem, then changing technology and
ideology in agriculture is incapable of achieving the desired outcomes in a sustainable way.
References
Bureau of Resource Sciences (1993). Opportunities for Regional Adjustment, Working Paper.
Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Buttel, F. (1993). The sociology of agricultural sustainability: some observations on the future of
sustainable agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 46: 175-86.
Checkland, P. (1990). 'Systems thinking, systems practice.' John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Coffey, S. (1994). Permanence, health and beauty. Invited paper to the 1994 Annual Conference of
the Australian Farm Management Society, Canberra.
Dahl, G. and Hjort, A. (1976). Having herds; pastoral herd growth and household economy. Studies
in Social Anthropology, Stockholm.
Fisher, R.J. (1986). Ecological anthropology and the study of social change in Western Rajasthan.
J. Sociolog. Stud. 5: Jan.
Fisher, R.J. (1982). A review of Ingold, T., 'Hunters, pastoralists and ranchers', (unpublished).
Holmes, J. (1994). Changing rangeland resource values - implications for land tenure and rural
settlement. Outlook '94, Canberra.
Hodges, H.M. (1974). 'Conflict and consensus: an introduction to sociology.' Harper and Row, New
York.
Ikerd, J. (1993). The need for a systems approach to sustainable agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 46: 147-60.
Ingold, T. (1980). 'Hunters, pastoralists and ranchers'. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Leff, E. (1985). Ethnobotany and Anthropology as tools for a Cultural Conservation Strategy. In:
Culture and conservation: the human dimension in environmental planning (Eds J.A. McNeely
and D. Pitt). Croom Helm, London.
Nyerges, A.E. (1982). Pastoralists, flocks and vegetation: processes of co-adaptation. In:
Desertification and development: dryland ecology in social perspective (Eds B. Spooner and
H.S. Mann) Academic Press, New York.
Perry, R.A. (1977). The evaluation and exploitation of semi-arid lands: Australian experience.
Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. Lond. series B 274: 493-505.
Rappaport, R.A. (1986). 'Pigs for the ancestors: ritual in theecology of New Guinea people'. Yale
Univ. Press, New Haven.
Ryan, A. (1970). 'The philosophy of the social sciences.' Macmillan Press, UK.
Savory, A. (1988).' Holistic resource management.' Island Press, California USA.
Schaller, N. (1993). The concept of agricultural sustainability. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 46: 89-97.
Stafford Smith, M. (1993). Defining stocking rate strategies for variable and sustainable production
in the face of market and climate variability. CSIRORIRDC Project CSW-28A, Final Draft.
Terry, E. (1972). 'Marxism and primitive societies.' Monthly Review Press, New York.
Westoby, M., Walker B. and Noy-Meyer, I. (1989). Range management on the basis of a model
which does not seek to establish an equilibrium. J. Arid Environ. 17: 253-9.
Wilcox, D.G., Cunningham, G.M (1994). Economic and ecological sustainability of current land use
in Australia's rangelands. In: R&D for sustainable use and management of Australia's rangelands:
Proceedings of a National Workshop and Associated Papers (Eds S.R. Morton and P.C. Price).
LWRRDC, Canberra